University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A public sector organizational change model: prioritizing a community-focused, inclusive, and collaborative approach to strategic planning

(USC Thesis Other)

A public sector organizational change model: prioritizing a community-focused, inclusive, and collaborative approach to strategic planning

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL: PRIORITIZING A
COMMUNITY-FOCUSED, INCLUSIVE, AND COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO
STRATEGIC PLANNING

By

John L. Drake II

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

May 2018

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 2
Acknowledgements
I would like to express sincere gratitude to Professor Deborah J. Natoli, PhD,
(Dissertation Committee Chair), Professor Terry L. Cooper, PhD, and Professor Frank V.
Zerunyan, JD for their mentorship and commitment to my academic progress and this public
sector organizational change model. Professor Natoli’s personal conviction and insightful
guidance throughout the research process proved instrumental to the success of this study.
Additionally, the dedication, focus, and attention to detail maintained by our strategic
plan team (Allen, Melinda, Suzy, and Tania) were of paramount importance because these efforts
facilitated practicality in methodological applications. Also, the strategic planning expertise
provided by Professor Rick Culley, PhD, was of significant value due to his contributions to the
development and implementation of several initiatives in this model.
Ultimately, the 21 strategic initiatives incorporated in this public sector organizational
change model were socially constructed with a significant focus on the value derived from
participative discourse and collaborative interaction. Therefore, I am grateful to all stakeholders
who contributed to every process in this study.

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 2
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 5
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 6
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 7
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 9
Fire Service: A Brief History ............................................................................................ 11
Need for the Study: Fire Service Reform ............................................................................... 13
Nationwide Trends Indicating Need for Fire Service Reform .......................................... 14
LAFD Trends Indicating Need for Reform ...................................................................... 16
Ongoing Challenges Facing the LAFD Indicating Need for Reform ............................... 19
Impact of Health Care Reforms on the Fire Service ............................................................... 25
Budget Implications Affecting LAFD Services ...................................................................... 26
Public Sector Organizational Reform ..................................................................................... 29
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................... 34
Public Sector Organizational Change Model .................................................................... 34
Strategic Planning Value in the LAFD ............................................................................. 34
A Community-Focused, Collaborative Approach to Public Sector Strategic Planning ......... 35
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 37
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature .............................................................................................. 39
Public Sector Organizations .................................................................................................... 39
Public Sector Organizational Change Theories and Models .................................................. 41
Bridging Organizational Change Theory and Practice Through Strategic Planning ........ 49
Strategic Planning Value in the Public Sector ........................................................................ 51
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 55
Chapter 3: Methodology, Data Analysis, and Outcomes .............................................................. 57
Introduction and Philosophical Assumptions ......................................................................... 57
Research Design, Participants, Procedures, and Instrumentation ........................................... 60
LAFD Strategic Plan Model: 21 Strategic Initiatives ............................................................. 62
Initiative 1: Strategic Plan Committee Chair .......................................................................... 62
Initiative 2: Strategic Plan Committee .................................................................................... 63
Initiative 3: Strategic Plan Project Management and Documentation .................................... 63
Initiative 4: Organizational Advocacy and Support for the Strategic Plan ............................. 64
Initiative 5: Vision, Mission, and Core Values Statement Assessment Document ................ 65
Initiative 6: Vision, Mission, and Core Values Statement Focus Group Assessment ............ 65
Vision Statement ............................................................................................................... 67
Mission Statement ............................................................................................................. 71
Core Values Statement ...................................................................................................... 75
Initiative 7: Vision Statement Development ........................................................................... 81
Focus Group Assessment and Outreach Session .............................................................. 82
Vision Statement Focus Group Activity ........................................................................... 82
Vision Statement Focus Group Recommendations .......................................................... 83
Development of a Renewed, Contemporary LAFD Vision Statement ............................. 84
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 84
Initiative 8: Mission Statement Development ......................................................................... 85
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 4
Focus Group Assessment and Outreach Session .............................................................. 86
Mission Statement Focus Group Activity ......................................................................... 86
Mission Statement Focus Group Recommendations ........................................................ 87
Development of a Renewed, Contemporary LAFD Mission Statement ........................... 88
Research and Literature Review: Mission Statements ...................................................... 88
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 89
Initiative 9: Core Values Statement Development .................................................................. 89
Collaborative Focus Group Assessment and Outreach Session ....................................... 90
Core Values Statement Focus Group Activity .................................................................. 91
Core Values Focus Group Recommendations .................................................................. 91
Development of a Renewed, Contemporary LAFD Core Values Statement .................... 92
Research and Literature Review: Core Values Statement ................................................ 92
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 94
Initiative 10: Environmental Assessment Preparation ............................................................ 94
Document and PowerPoint Presentation ........................................................................... 94
Initiative 11: Environmental Assessment ............................................................................... 95
Determination of Internal and External Stakeholders ....................................................... 95
Environmental Assessment Document Dissemination ..................................................... 96
Preliminary Outreach Session Planning Meeting ............................................................. 96
Environmental Assessment Outreach Session .................................................................. 97
Preliminary General Membership Environmental Assessment Planning Meeting ........... 97
General Membership Environmental Assessment Outreach Session ............................... 98
Labor Organization Environmental Assessment and Outreach Sessions ......................... 98
Community-Based Environmental Assessment Outreach Sessions ................................. 99
Community- and Internet-Based Environmental Assessment Surveys .......................... 100
Initiative 12: Environmental Assessment Findings: Key Themes ........................................ 100
Initiative 13: Goal Development ........................................................................................... 105
Initiative 14: Goal Implementation Plan Document ............................................................. 106
Initiative 15: Focus Groups and Focus Group Leaders: Goal Pursuit .................................. 108
Focus Groups .................................................................................................................. 108
Focus Group Leaders ...................................................................................................... 108
Initiative 16: Focus Group Leader Direction and Guidance ................................................. 108
Formal Direction from Fire Chief to Focus Group Leaders ........................................... 109
Initiative 17: Goal Strategies, Goal Tactics, and Performance Metrics ................................ 109
Initiative 18: Focus Group and Strategic Plan Committee Collaboration ............................ 117
Initiative 19: Topics for Consideration of Inclusion in the Strategic Plan ........................... 118
Initiative 20: Review, Revision, and Finalization of Strategic Plan Document ................... 119
Initiative 21: Strategic Plan Management ............................................................................. 120
Conclusion: LAFD Strategic Plan Model: 21 Strategic Initiatives ....................................... 120
Chapter 4: Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 123
Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 123
Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................ 126
Future Research .................................................................................................................... 127
Transfer of Innovation and Implementation ......................................................................... 128
References ................................................................................................................................... 130

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 5
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. U.S. Fire and Medical Aid Incident Trends, 1980–2015 ........................................... 15
Figure 1.2. U.S. Fire Department Responses by Incident Type, 2015 ......................................... 15
Figure 1.3. LAFD Incident Count, 2005–2015 ............................................................................. 16
Figure 1.4. EMS Responses by Category in the LAFD, 2015 ...................................................... 17
Figure 1.5. LAFD Incident Trends, 2005–2016 ........................................................................... 18
Figure 1.6. LAFD Patient Transport Count, 2005–2015 .............................................................. 18
Figure 2.1. Strategic Plan Model .................................................................................................. 53
Figure 3.1. A Public Sector Organizational Change Model: 21 Strategic Initiatives ................. 122

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 6
List of Tables
Table 3.1. Strategic Plan Project Management Document ........................................................... 64
Table 3.2. Key Themes: Assessment Findings ........................................................................... 101
Table 3.3. Key Themes and Organizational Goals ..................................................................... 105
Table 3.4. Focus Groups and Assessment Findings Document .................................................. 110

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 7
Executive Summary
The purpose of this study was to develop a process that facilitated relevant organizational
reform in the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD), and more broadly, the development of an
inclusive, participatory model for sustainable organizational change that maintained practical
application for the public sector in general. The investigation focused on collaboration with a
wide range of stakeholders, including focused outreach and partnerships with Los Angeles
citizen groups to create a global model for meaningful organizational improvement.
The methodological approach selected for this process abandoned vertically hierarchical,
autocratic management tenets and adapted fieldwork strategies, focus group interviews for
qualitative data gathering, and online survey research to determine public opinion related to the
services provided by the LAFD. The methodology was underpinned by progressive
ideologies regarding the value of collaborative interaction, group reflection, and inclusive
outreach to stakeholders in 96 Los Angeles communities. Shared communications and a
participative strategic planning approach provided not only the foundation for structural change
and cooperative generation of substantive LAFD organizational vision, mission, and value
statements, but also the corresponding goals, strategies, tactics, and benchmarks necessary to
pursue the renewed organizational vision.
LAFD vision, mission, and core values statements were developed through focused
inputs derived from ranking LAFD officials. The corresponding organizational goals were
derived from inputs received from LAFD sworn and civilian members, unionized labor
representatives, community members, community representatives, city partners, peer agencies,
elected and appointed officials. The specific strategies, tactics, and benchmarks designed to
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 8
achieve each identified organizational goal were collectively developed through focus groups
composed of goal-related subject matter experts.
Ultimately, the model was derived through emerging, dynamic processes that contributed
to the development of a sequential narrative wherein each strategic plan initiative contributed to
and informed the next. The 21 strategic initiatives incorporated in the LAFD strategic plan model
represent a prescriptive model for public sector organizational change that prioritizes
collaboration, inclusiveness, and community.
This public sector organizational change model connects academic research with
practical application and may provide contemporary public leaders with a method to bridge gaps
that may exist between influences (e.g., political, economic, social, technological, environmental
and legislative) that may affect their ability to provide effective, efficient, and optimal public
services. Therefore, similar application of the processes identified in this model may have
broader implications, and its implementation in the public sector may prove useful in affecting
relevant change in organizations committed to maintaining pace with contemporary public
service demands.

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 9
Chapter 1: Introduction
The City of Los Angeles, the second largest in the United States, represents a large
municipality that is organizationally composed of 37 departments and bureaus. They are led by
general managers or department heads who are appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the City
Council, and charged with the provision of effective, efficient, and optimal public services. For
some, the leadership responsibilities and challenges associated with the provision of these
services may be onerous, because they often require the implementation of significant reforms
that deviate from organizationally entrenched cultural norms.
Laura Chick, city controller for the City of Los Angeles from 2001 to 2009, expertly
characterized the absolute need for reform across numerous departments and bureaus in Los
Angeles. For example, when posed questions regarding commonalities found in multiple
departments in the city, Controller Chick passionately advocated urgency for substantial change
when she observed:
No written rules, policies or procedures. No vision. No goals or objectives. No strategic
plan. No accountability. No performance measures. Silos within silos. Disconnected jobs.
Lack of integration. Lack of integration between elements of the same program all trying
to accomplish a common goal. Turf wars. Turf mentality. No one in charge. Insular. We
promoted from within. We’re a strong union city. The tradition was that you promoted
from within, so how do you get great ideas? (Barrett & Greene, 2007, para. 6)
The Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) is one example of an organization in the City
of Los Angeles’ public service family that should continually pursue improvements through the
execution of substantive macro-level reforms and the implementation of incremental micro-level
adjustments that facilitate the provision of optimal services.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 10
Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to develop a process that facilitated not only
relevant organizational reform in the LAFD, but also the development of an inclusive,
participatory model for sustainable organizational change that maintained practical application
for the public sector in general. This endeavor was predicated on collaborative outreach sessions
with internal and external stakeholders, community groups, and focus groups.
Specific LAFD organizational reform concerns involve a multitude of dimensions,
including but not limited to the following topics: leadership, culture, public safety, emergency
services, resource deployment, human resources management, risk management,
communications, fiscal sustainability, health care, performance metrics, and strategic planning.
The LAFD, a large public sector organization that is inherently subject to numerous
influences affecting its ability to implement change, is not exempt from the same challenges
identified by Borins (2000):
1. Initiatives coming from the political system, due to an election mandate, legislation
enabling an innovation, or pressure by politicians;
2. New leadership, whether from outside or inside the organization;
3. A crisis, defined as a current or anticipated publicly visible failure or problem;
4. A variety of internal problems (failing to respond to a changing environment,
inability to reach a target population, inability to meet demand for a program,
resource constraints, or an inability to coordinate policies); and
5. New opportunities, created by technology or other causes. (p. 502)
Certainly, numerous variables and competing influences factor into decisions related to
organizational reform (e.g., leadership, culture, service capabilities, societal concerns, political
affiliations, union influences, privatization and civilianization efforts, budget allocations,
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 11
legislation, bureaucracies, and technological advancements; Barzelay, 1992; Borins, 2000;
Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003; Drucker, 1973; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Kotter & Schlesinger,
2008). More globally, the narrative associated with the aforementioned competing influences
appears to extend beyond specific application to the LAFD.
Today’s organizations, whether the public sector in general, the fire service, or more
specifically the LAFD, are not immune to competing influences that affect innovative
organizational change. As the focus of this study, the LAFD may provide examples of
organizational reform considerations that have ubiquitous implications for many public service
agencies. To effectively illustrate these potential implications, it is important to offer a brief
historical description of the inception and evolution of the U.S. fire service.
Fire Service: A Brief History
The inception of the U.S. fire service occurred in 1648 in a small, 270-person Dutch
settlement called New Amsterdam, later known as New York. The director general in New
Amsterdam appointed four fire wardens to establish volunteer fire watches designed to patrol
streets and protect the community from fire, or worse, major conflagrations. These volunteer fire
watches came to be known as “rattle watches” because they relied on rattles, bells, gongs, and
verbal notifications to immediately alert the community of perilous fires (Smith, 1978).
Early fire prevention and suppression efforts depended on bucket brigades, ladders,
chimney regulations, and hand-pumped engines, which were often manned by volunteers who
lacked organization (Smith, 1978). During the 19th century, volunteer fire departments became
more organized and therefore, increasingly more effective at fire suppression. Increasing
population size, greater fire risks, resistance to technological innovations, pressures from
insurance companies, influential politicians, and competitive dissension among volunteers
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 12
expedited the demise of the volunteer system in large, metropolitan cities, while concurrently
spurring interest in more professional, skilled firefighting forces.
In 1853, the City of Cincinnati instituted the first paid fire department. Some of the
advantages realized with paid fire departments included more reliable labor forces, greater
efficiencies, modernized equipment, response prioritization, and improved alarm systems, to
name a few (Smith, 1978).
The volunteer fire service evolved from rattle watches and bucket brigades to far more
complex, synergistic multidisciplinary professional fire service organizations, and fire
departments nationwide became increasingly recognized for involvement in the “all-hazard” type
of public safety services. With technological advancements came increased risks. The dangers of
yesteryear involving perilous fires transitioned to more hazardous complexities at emergency
incidents involving high-rise structures, multiple casualties, the wildland–urban interface,
hazardous chemicals, radioactivity, urban search and rescue, airports, harbors, swift water,
terrorism, and emergency medical services (EMS).
Ultimately, alarm notifications of impending emergency events progressed from rattle
watches to technologically advanced emergency operations centers. Emergency services
advanced from volunteer bucket brigades to complex, multidisciplinary civil service
organizations, which highlights the importance of needed reforms that has existed since the
inception of the fire service and continues today.
The mission of federal, state, and local public sector organizations is to provide services
valued by their respective communities. However, the public discourse is about the most
effective means to provide these services. The fire service represents one example of a prominent
public service domain that must continually adjust to current demands, because these
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 13
adjustments will enhance the delivery of services, increase relevance to the community, and
improve organizational sustainability.
Need for the Study: Fire Service Reform
Fire service organizations nationwide exemplify a public service segment that must
adjust to public demands with an objective, contemporary, and community-focused commitment
to service. An example of a ubiquitous tradition requiring modernization exists in the terms fire
service and fire department, because the connotation associated with these appellations narrowly
implies a fixed, limited role of fighting fires. Contemporarily, public service demands in the
emergency services spectrum throughout the nation have changed demonstrably in recent
decades, and those fire service organizations that have adapted to these dynamic priorities with
an all-hazard approach and greater community focus have appropriately evolved to assume far
broader public service roles.
A paradoxical ideology stigmatizing the fire service of today is one that minimizes a
multidisciplinary public safety organization that offers an all-hazard response structure as simply
a fire department whose only role is to extinguish injurious fires. The broader fire service role
reinforces an all-risk posture that emphasizes the importance of embracing a wide range of
public safety concerns. The term all risk expands the role of fighting fires and describes the
importance of mitigating and improving the outcomes of all emergency incident types, including
but not limited to incidents involving high-rise structures, hazardous materials, the wildland–
urban interface, homeland security and terrorism, metro rail and transportation, multicasualty
patient generators, urban search and rescue, airports, waterways, and EMS.
A fire service cultural challenge rests in the entrenched stereotype of fighting fire, despite
the occurrence of fires throughout the nation declining dramatically for decades. Unfortunately,
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 14
many fire service agencies have yet to fully implement the necessary adaptations, or
organizational reform processes, to substantively improve public services, a problem that only
perpetuates obsolete trends and further compromises the ability to ensure contemporary
community relevance. Ultimately, and of paramount importance, is the implementation of fire
service reforms that focus on improved public services, organizational sustainability, cultural
norms, and employee satisfaction. Often, these organizational fire service reforms can be
achieved through community-focused, inclusive, and participative strategic planning processes.
Nationwide Trends Indicating Need for Fire Service Reform
In Trends and Patterns of U.S. Fire Loss (Ahrens, 2017), the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) documented significant changes in fire service trends throughout the United
States, specifically outlining “a broader context and historical perspective” and concluding:
Over the past three decades, the number of fire department incident responses has nearly
tripled. The largest increase was in medical aid and rescue calls. Fire calls have fallen
markedly. In 2015, only 4% of all fire department responses were to fires. Almost two-
thirds (64%) were medical aid or rescue responses. Fire departments responded to more
than three times as many medical aid or rescue calls in 2015 as in 1985. (Abstract, paras.
1–2)
U.S. fire and medical aid incident trends. NFPA statistical data and trends for U.S. fire
and medical aid incidents are represented in the following illustration (Figure 1.1). “Reported
fires fell 59% from 3,264,500 in 1977 to 1,345,000 in 2015” (Ahrens, 2017, p. 1). In comparison,
medical aid and rescue incidents accounted for 64% of all fire department responses in 2015
(Ahrens, 2017).
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 15
Figure 1.1. U.S. Fire and Medical Aid Incident Trends, 1980–2015
Note. Data adapted from Ahrens (2017, p. 16).
U.S. medical aid responses. “Almost two thirds of fire department responses were
medical aid or rescue calls. During 2015, U.S. fire departments responded to 21.5 million calls
involving EMS, medical assistance, and non-fire rescue” (Ahrens, 2017, p. 9). Figure 1.2 shows
that medical aid or rescue incidents accounted for 64% of fire department responses (Ahrens,
2017).
Figure 1.2. U.S. Fire Department Responses by Incident Type, 2015

Note. Data adapted from Ahrens (2017, p. 9).
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 16
LAFD Trends Indicating Need for Reform
For decades, national, state, and local data have documented trends indicating an
increasing public demand for the provision of EMS, and conversely, a decreasing rate of civilian
fatalities, civilian injuries, and property loss resulting from fire-related emergencies. As the
NFPA reported: “Over the past three decades, the number of fire department incident responses
has nearly tripled. The largest increase was in medical aid and rescue calls. Fire calls have fallen
markedly” (Ahrens, 2017, Abstract, para. 1).
LAFD incident count. Consistent with national trends, LAFD incidents increased from
351,458 in 2005 to 464,416 in 2015, a 32% rise in public service request volume during a span
of 11 years, according to the LAFD Data Analysis Unit (personal communication, April 22,
2016; see Figure 1.3).
Figure 1.3. LAFD Incident Count, 2005–2015
Note. Data provided by LAFD Data Analysis Unit (personal communication, April 22, 2016).
LAFD rising EMS demands. LAFD records also have documented rising public
demands for EMS at a significantly greater rate than national trends. As previously mentioned,
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 17
nationwide records indicated almost 64% of fire department responses in 2015 were medical or
rescue responses (Ahrens, 2017). However, in the City of Los Angeles, EMS responses represent
83% of all LAFD emergency responses in 2015 (LAFD Data Analysis Unit, personal
communication, April 22, 2016; see Figure 1.4). The LAFD differentiates EMS responses into
two main categories: advanced life support and basic life support.
Figure 1.4. EMS Responses by Category in the LAFD, 2015

Note. Data provided by LAFD Data Analysis Unit (personal communication, April 22, 2016).
The LAFD Data Analysis Unit further documented trends wherein LAFD requests for
emergency services increased approximately 1.4% per year from 2005 to 2014, and during this
same period, EMS requests for service rose approximately 1.8% per year. Of note is the fact that
data compiled in 2015 documented an additional 15% increase in public service demands for the
2-year period from 2014 to 2015 (LAFD Data Analysis Unit, personal communication, April 22,
2016; see Figure 1.5).
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 18
Figure 1.5. LAFD Incident Trends, 2005–2016
Note. Data provided by LAFD Data Analysis Unit (personal communication, April 22, 2016).
LAFD patient transportation to care facilities. LAFD patient transports to health care
facilities rose approximately 1.5% per year from 2001 through 2014; consistent with more recent
trends, patient transports thereafter increased approximately 15% per year (LAFD Data Analysis
Unit, personal communication, April 22, 2016; see Figure 1.6).
Figure 1.6. LAFD Patient Transport Count, 2005–2015
Note. Data provided by LAFD Data Analysis Unit (personal communication, April 22, 2016).
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 19
LAFD Data Analysis Unit personnel identified a 15% spike in EMS demand and patient
transports for the 2-year period from 2014 to 2015. LAFD data from 2016 indicated
approximately 1,200 EMS incidents per 24-hour period, of which more than 600 resulted in the
transportation of patients to care facilities (LAFD Planning Section, personal communication,
May 1, 2017).
Dr. Mark Eckstein, professor of emergency medicine at the Keck School of Medicine of
the University of Southern California (USC), medical director of the Los Angeles County USC
base station, and LAFD EMS bureau commander, confidently asserted during a 2013
presentation before the LAFD Board of Fire Commissioners: “We can no longer do business the
same way just because this is the way we have always done it” and emphasized the following
current challenges in EMS affecting the LAFD:
● Increasing EMS requests
● Misuse of the 911 emergency medical system
● Emergency room overcrowding
● Lack of basic life support ambulances
● Lack of emphasis on EMS in the LAFD
● Inadequate EMS field supervision
● Lack of EMS training
Ongoing Challenges Facing the LAFD Indicating Need for Reform
Ongoing challenges facing the LAFD since 1994 are briefly summarized to demonstrate
the vital need for LAFD organizational reform. As previously mentioned, Laura Chick, former
city controller for the City of Los Angeles, criticized the LAFD leadership for lack of written
rules, policies, procedures, vision, goals, objectives, and a strategic plan (Barrett & Greene,
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 20
2007). Consistent with Controller Chick’s findings, major topics of concern identified by
researching numerous Los Angeles City Council motions, LAFD reviews, and audits include but
are not limited to the following areas:
● Public safety (emergency services, resource deployment, response times)
● Leadership (human resources management, professional standards, ethics, discipline,
communication, recruitment, hiring)
● Culture (resistance to change, work environment, professionalism)
● Strategic planning (vision, mission, values, goals, goal strategies, goal tactics,
performance metrics)
Human resources management, equal opportunity, and culture: 1994. Following
numerous allegations of improprieties in the LAFD work environment, the Personnel
Department, in 1994, was directed to conduct an analysis of the LAFD. Subsequently, the
Human Resources Development Committee found LAFD deficiencies in the areas of equity,
inclusion, and accountability, and therefore recommended a comprehensive plan designed to
ensure improvements in equal employment opportunity, work environment, recruitment,
promotional processes, career development, entry-level processes, training academy,
probationary retention, discipline, and transfer of personnel (City of Los Angeles Personnel
Department, 1998).
Public safety, emergency services, culture, and strategic planning: 1997. Disparities
in the provision of emergency services, and more specifically differing response times between
fire and EMS incidents, have long been a concern for LAFD administrators. An internal LAFD
report titled “Fire and Emergency Medical Resource Enroute Times” found the majority of
delayed enroute responses were for emergency medical responses (Miller, 1997, p. 14). “In
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 21
analyzing this data and reviewing the comments contained in the solicited reports from the
various Battalion Offices, attitude, complacency and lack of enthusiasm are significant factors
identified in the amount of overdue incidents, particularly during emergency medical incidents”
(Miller, 1997, p. 14).
Of note is the fact that in 1997, the inherent value of basic strategic planning tenets was
emphasized:
The basis of any organization is a set of sound goals and objectives that provide both
purpose and direction to the organization. Valid goals are established and identified in
order for an organization to perform effectively. To support and measure these goals,
performance-oriented objectives are also developed. (Miller, 1997, p. 2)
Human resources management, leadership, discipline, and recruit training: 2006–
2008. Controller Chick, concerned with needed reform in the LAFD, commissioned a private
consulting firm to conduct an objective analysis of the LAFD leadership, which was titled
“Review of the Los Angeles Fire Department Management Practices.” The report concluded the
LAFD should improve its management practices in several areas including leadership,
communication, complaint and disciplinary practices, and human relations. The auditors found:
To be effective, the command structure at the LAFD requires strong leadership from the
top, transparency and consistency, reliable dissemination of information, open
communication, honest feedback, and equal treatment and practices. What we found at
LAFD reveals that they are not meeting these standards in several areas related to
managing human resources. (Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, 2006, p. 2)
Nearly 2.5 years after release of the controller’s 2006 audit, follow-up recommendations
were submitted by Controller Chick (2008) in another exacting letter to the Los Angeles mayor,
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 22
city attorney, and City Council included in the report titled “Follow-Up Audit of LAFD’s
Management Practices.” Chick (2008) reinforced her previous assertions regarding the
importance of LAFD change, stating:
I released an audit which painted a very troubling picture at the Los Angeles Fire
Department. While our firefighters were on the front lines performing heroic service, the
leadership at the top was not serving them well. When my report was released; however,
it was met with deafening silence. It took multi-million dollar lawsuits and nearly an
entire year before there was a change in the leadership at the Department. (paras. 1-2)
Appreciative inquiry attempt at LAFD strategic planning: 2011. Consistent with
Councilmember Mitchell Englander’s (2011) motion for all city departments to develop strategic
plans, the LAFD administration initiated appreciative inquiry (AI) planning processes that
focused on the AI principles of organizational strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results, as
opposed to the more commonly accepted strategic planning factors predicated on strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Due to their ineffectiveness, the LAFD abandoned AI
processes.
Public safety, emergency services, and emergency response times: 2012. Concerns
regarding LAFD public safety services and emergency response times were brought to the
forefront when Councilmember Eric Garcetti motioned on March 20, 2012, to gain support from
the City Council, city administrative officer, and chief legislative analyst to audit the LAFD’s
ability to provide adequate emergency services within acceptable standards.
Garcetti’s pursuit of improvements to LAFD emergency services continued when he and
Councilmember Englander coauthored a council motion on November 16, 2012, in which they
asserted, “The City Council has acted to create FIRESTATLA to provide policymakers, the
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 23
LAFD and the public with critical response times and other data” (Garcetti & Englander, 2012,
para. 3). They excoriated the LAFD leadership, adding:
On May 21, 2012, the City Council instructed the CAO [city administrative officer] and
LAFD managers to develop a plan to restore LAFD resources in order to reduce response
times, dispatch response times, and improve overall public safety. Six months later,
LAFD managers are unable or unwilling to tell the Council what their solutions are to
improve response times and make Los Angeles safer. (Garcetti & Englander, 2012, para.
4)
FIRESTATLA is a data-driven system employing technology and innovative management
techniques intended to enhance transparency, accountability, and performance within the LAFD.
Human resources management, leadership, discipline system, discrimination,
harassment, hostility, hazing, and retaliation: 2013. Independent assessor Stephen Miller, in a
submission to the Board of Fire Commissioners on September 4, 2013, titled “Review of the Fire
Department’s Disciplinary Process,” cited the city controller’s audit (in 2006), Personnel
Department’s audit (in 2006), and nearly $18 million in payments resulting from litigation
related to allegations of discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and hazing in the LAFD as
causes for the inherently flawed disciplinary system. In his review of the LAFD disciplinary
processes, Miller (2013) asserted, “It is more important than ever that the Fire Department have
an effective and credible disciplinary process” (p. 1).
Budget efficiencies, public safety, emergency services, organization, resource
deployment, technology, culture, and strategic planning: 2014. Concerned about the most
efficient, cost-effective LAFD model that would best serve Los Angeles residents, the city
administrative officer, at the direction of the City Council, secured an independent, third-party
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 24
analysis of organizational and operational issues confronting the LAFD. The consultant, charged
with developing unbiased recommendations to improve the overall delivery of LAFD public
services, discovered:
1. Cultural challenges: The organization has not fully come to terms with changing
business priorities that have emerged over the last 30 years, particularly the decline in
the number and seriousness of fire related incidents and the increase in EMS
emergencies;
2. Organizational challenges: There is a lack of accountability, engagement and
community presence from the current command structure staff. The alignment of
management does not sufficiently support engagement with the communities they
serve;
3. Process challenges: The absence of a Strategic Plan and Standards of Cover creates
and reinforces a highly tactical and reactive culture responding without a long-term
frame of reference;
4. Technology challenges: There are multiple technology initiatives underway that
should be aggregated under a single point of accountability. (adapted from PA
Consulting, 2014, pp. 2–4)
Notably, the consultant recommended the department first develop a strategic plan in
order to establish the steps necessary to improve its organization. “LAFD is viewed as a tactical
organization that lacks a long-term vision, and organizational, departmental and individual
objectives. The first step of LAFD’s transformation should therefore [be] to develop a
comprehensive Strategic Plan” (PA Consulting, 2014, p. 18).
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 25
Impact of Health Care Reforms on the Fire Service
The Department of Health Care Services, which is charged with the administration of
Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid program), asserts that the state of California is continually
addressing increasing patient populations. The Los Angeles County + USC Medical Center is
one example of numerous health care facilities throughout the nation that have experienced
severe patient overcrowding trends. The patient overcrowding problem has become so pervasive
that hospital emergency rooms are often overloaded and ambulances are regularly diverted to
remote health care facilities.
Changing demands in how the country provides health care, with increased access to
emergency service providers, ambulance transportation, medical facilities, and physicians,
necessitate universal reform in EMS and health care delivery. More specifically, greater access
to publicly funded health care will require continual evaluation, reevaluation, and adjustment to
current patient treatment models to maintain community relevance. For example, mobile health
care teams may become more common than localized, individual physician care.
Dr. Eckstein, the LAFD medical director who asserted that many fire departments have
changed their names to include “fire and rescue” or “fire and EMS,” added that paramedics have
become an extension of the health care system. In fact, community paramedicine is a growing
term in the field of emergency services that represents a specific paradigm shift toward the
provision of EMS, wherein paramedics and nurse practitioners, as health care system providers,
are replacing doctors making house calls.
Ultimately, fire service organizations nationwide, as multidisciplinary public safety
agencies with an all-hazard response infrastructure, must initiate adjustments to the expanding
role of all-risk-based emergency services. Regarding the provision of EMS, considerations for
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 26
community outreach, community practice paramedics, preventive care, community
cardiopulmonary resuscitation training, proactive care and placement of frequent EMS system
users, expanded scope of practice (advanced practice paramedics), and “treat-and-release” field
protocols are of paramount importance.
Budget Implications Affecting LAFD Services
Cyclical, fluctuating revenues and budget allocations affecting federal, state, and local
coffers often influence the ability of politicians and administrators to consistently provide
commonly expected services (e.g., national security, military, health care, education, public
safety, and many other publicly funded programs). The financial considerations, and eventual
fallout resulting from diminished or enhanced budget allocations, often pressure legislative
officials and public administrators into difficult decisions regarding policy and priorities.
Whether on a national, regional, or local level, politically sensitive issues prioritized by
prominent decision makers are often buoyed by increased budget allocations, whereas in
contrast, less sensitive issues supported by less influential proponents may regularly experience
reduced or eliminated budget apportions. “Most government agencies have budgets that are
determined by the nature of the mission, the activities required to carry out that mission, and—
sometimes most important of all—the place of those activities on the current political agenda”
(Bolton, 2003, p. 21).
In either of the aforementioned scenarios, strategic planning, organizational restructuring
(redeployment), and reorganization considerations become increasingly important for
organizational sustainability.
Greater transparency required of politicians, mayors, city councils, city administrators,
and others have generated increased oversight and scrutiny of not only overall organizational
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 27
decisions, but also resource allocations and financial expenditures. Nationwide, the fire service
in general and the LAFD specifically have not been insulated from these trends; therefore,
greater accountability is required of contemporary organizational leaders, who now more than
ever must reconcile service capabilities with political, financial, and community expectations.
For example, the recent economic downturn commencing in 2008 caused crises, revenue
declines, and budgetary limitations in the City of Los Angeles that challenged the mayor, City
Council, and general managers with personnel and resource reductions of unprecedented levels.
In the LAFD, reactive measures to the 2009–2012 budget declines were employed when LAFD
officials attempted to balance the most essential, core public service needs with declining
budgets and personnel reductions.
Prior to the economic downturn, the LAFD maintained a 2008–2009 annual operating
budget of $561 million; however, due to the aforementioned mounting fiscal crisis, the
subsequent 2009–2010 LAFD annual operating budget was reduced 10%, or $56.5 million, to
approximately $505 million (LAFD Planning Section, personal communication, December 1,
2016). Further, the 2010–2011 budget was reduced an additional $10 million to $495 million and
the 2011–2012 budget was decreased an additional $23 million to $472 million (LAFD Planning
Section, personal communication, December 1, 2016). These significant reductions adversely
affected the LAFD’s ability to maintain the public service levels achieved in previous years.
In April 2008, former LAFD Fire Chief Douglas Barry formally communicated to Los
Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa that reductions of 15% in LAFD budget allocations would
result in a commensurate 15% decline in LAFD services.
Dramatic personnel and resource reductions resulting from unprecedented budget cuts
caused LAFD officials to balance all-risk emergency service trends, budgetary constraints, and
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 28
national, state, and local standards with the development of reduced deployment configurations
such as the 2009 Modified Coverage Plan, 2009–10 New Modified Coverage Plan, 2010–11
Expanded Modified Coverage Plan, and the current 2012 New Deployment Model. The New
Deployment Model objectives, consistent with those established in the previous reduction plans,
were designed to reduce staffing levels and generate required budgetary savings while
accomplishing the following:
● Minimize adverse effects on public safety, firefighter safety, and service delivery
● Maintain resource staffing levels consistent with NFPA standards
● Maintain NFPA response time guideline goals
● Address workload increases resulting from resource reductions
● Provide for surge capacity to address expected and exigent needs
● Maintain staffing of critical civilian support function
The 2014–15 Los Angeles Police Department budget of $1.4 billion accounted for 52.6%
of the city’s General Fund, and the 2014-15 LAFD budget, at $565.1 million accounted for an
additional 17.2%. These figures (69.8% of the General Fund) represent the two greatest expenses
associated with the city’s annual operating budget. These allocations characterize the mayor and
councilmembers’ commitment to public safety in the City of Los Angeles.
Councilmember Englander recognized the importance of planning processes in the
effective management of budgets. Previously, in 2011, Englander motioned that “all City
Departments and Bureaus be directed to engage in strategic planning, including the
establishment of measurable goals and performance metrics for those goals for inclusion in the
2013-2014 budget process” (para. 8).
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 29
Correspondingly, during a Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council meeting, Councilmember
Englander, then presiding as Los Angeles City Council president pro tempore and chair of the
Public Safety Committee, stated:
If we get into the next budget crunch, emergency … cutting services. How do we deal
with that? Because you’ve built up issues, whether it’s homes, development, industrial …
whatever that might be. … It’s having a strategic plan. This department [LAFD] has
never had a strategic plan. (personal communication, April 1, 2015)
Public Sector Organizational Reform
Public sector organizations, whether federal, state, or local, often maintain similarities in
their visions, missions, and values, and these organizational statements frequently emphasize
public service as a prominent theme. In fact, the operative term broadly found in most public
sector organizational statements is service. However, starkly divergent, competing perspectives
regarding service priorities often exist among influential political figures, unprotected public
administrators, powerful union representatives, and demanding constituents. Consequently,
responsive public sector leaders must employ measures to effectively balance numerous
competing perspectives and regularly conflicting internal and external pressures with the demand
to provide the services identified in their vision, mission, and value statements (Borins, 2000;
Perry & Rainey, 1988; Robertson & Seneviratne, 1995; Van Wart, 2003).
Relative to competing perspectives, political direction may be abruptly amended
following a city council debate; public administrators, absent protections or entitlements, may be
expeditiously coerced into retirement; union representatives may promptly redirect political
contributions; and constituent demands may contrast sharply from one geographic council
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 30
district to another. Rainey (1999) recognized these competing agendas and the ephemeral
rhetoric often associated with them:
Observers point out that reforms are often rhetorical or symbolic in nature, claiming a
purpose or justification that appeals to a public belief or stereotype. … Sometimes, the
symbolic and rhetorical games, and the misdiagnoses, are purposeful and disingenuous in
that they mask alternative hidden agendas. (adapted from p. 139)
Public, private, and nonprofit sector competition poses additional challenges for many
contemporary public administrators, because public organizations have long been stigmatized
with an increasing inability to adeptly provide services and efficiencies compared to their private
sector counterparts (Borins, 2000; Bozeman, 1993; Facer & Rainey, 1996; Golembiewski, 1985;
Hooijberg & Choi, 2001; Lewin, 1947; Nutt & Backoff, 1993; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992;
Rainey, 1999; Van De Ven & Poole, 1995). Thus, organizational sustainability has become a
burgeoning topic that stimulates controversy regarding which sector maintains the ability to
provide the most efficient, effective, and relevant services deemed of greatest value.
Generally, the public-versus-private argument fulcrums on the aforementioned competing
influences (i.e., political, societal, economic). Clarke and Clegg (1999) acknowledged these
influences and their impact on decisions related to the provision of services:
New forces for change have acted as a catalyst in transforming much of the public sector
provision: the insistent interventions of impatient government politicians; new demands
created by social change; transformed thinking about the nature of effective management;
and heightened consumer awareness. These have combined with much tighter financial
controls; close external scrutiny of spending and performance; and renewed commitments
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 31
to quality in public service delivery, to encourage a climate of improved performance. (p.
485)
Further, Jurisch, Ikas, Wolf, and Krcmar (2013) affirmed not only the existence of
competing influences, but also the agility necessary to remain competitive: “To tackle the current
financial, social, and political challenges, public sector organizations need to rethink, adapt, and
thus reengineer their underlying service processes” (p. 4).
Effective leadership represents another prominent variable that is of paramount
importance to the success of any organization, particularly when strategic leadership is needed to
balance contemporarily relevant public service demands with competing influences that are
supported by varying ideologies (Higgs, 2010; Hooijberg & Choi, 2001; Kellis & Ran, 2015;
Kotter, 2012; Lewin, 1947; Lines, 2004; Nutt & Backoff, 1993; Van Wart, 2003). “In each
organization, leadership played a consistently important role in every effort to improve
performance and implement specific management reforms” (Hennessey, 1998, p. 523). Buckland
and Joshua (1992) reinforced the importance of community-focused, contemporary public sector
leadership: “To survive, local government has had to develop a stronger sense of strategic
leadership, an increased emphasis on performance, quality, and better financial management and
a greater concern for the consumers of local services” (p. 21).
Considering the numerous influences, competitive forces, and potential repercussions
affecting today’s public sector decision-makers, the provision of contemporarily relevant
services can become an onerous task. All too often, pragmatic attempts to improve services
through innovative processes that depart from long-established cultural norms have been
thwarted by unyielding internal or external resistance (Facer & Rainey, 1996; Golembiewski,
1985; Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Lines, 2004; Robbins & Judge, 2010). Therefore, the
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 32
implementation of effective organizational reform frequently requires progressive, adaptive
leadership that recognizes, substantiates, and communicates the need for organizational
improvement (Armenakis, Mossholder, & Harris, 1993; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Herold,
Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008; Kotter, 2012).
Following the recognition of the need for organizational improvement, effective
implementation of change initiatives requires leadership that validates the need for change, and
research has further indicated not only the importance of this validation, but also the ability to
convince organizational stakeholders of the value derived from relevant change (Cunningham &
Kempling, 2009; Kotter, 2012; Lewin, 1947). Fernandez and Rainey (2006) asserted that the first
step in organizational transformations involving large-scale, planned, and strategic changes
requires that leaders “ensure the need,” adding that “managerial leaders must verify and
persuasively communicate the need for change” (p. 169). Correspondingly, Kotter (2012)
emphasized that the first action necessary to implementing effective change is to “establish a
sense of urgency” (p. 37).
Prior to launching organizational change initiatives, public service officials interested in
ensuring contemporary relevance in their respective communities must first firmly substantiate
the need for change, and thus understand that maintaining obsolete paradigms shrouded in
tradition, or conversely, implementing adjustments solely to depart from the status quo, can
exacerbate problems, cause systemic dysfunction, or worse, organizational failure. Agócs (1997)
adeptly communicated this tenet:
Organizational change begins with a reason—with demonstrations of the need for and
desirability of change. A credible diagnosis of the problem is needed as a basis for a plan
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 33
for effective change, and as a means of making the case for change to organizational
decision makers. (p. 921)
Subsequent to the determination of the need for organizational improvements, effective
leaders must also recognize the value of planning beyond traditional paradigms, the importance
of developing support for change, and last, the significance of institutionalizing or embedding
change. Hence, the methodological focus of this research centers on a practical case study
exemplar of a contemporarily relevant, community-focused public sector organizational change
model that is proposed for the LAFD, a public sector organization composed of more than 3,400
sworn and civilian personnel members.
The means to effect substantive organizational change and provide optimal services,
which are often formalized into strategic plans, require embracing processes that ameliorate
obsolete, traditionally entrenched organizational paradigms and progressively become more
attuned to current community demands. Culley (2014) maintained that a strategic plan
“encompasses the grand design and ambitions of the organization, integrates
management/employee thinking for a common purpose, and provides a framework for action for
management and employees” (p. 6).
Organizational progression derived from strategic planning processes that continually
facilitate adaptations to varying public demands will not only improve public service relevance,
but also increase the likelihood of organizational sustainability (Bryson, 2010; Fernandez &
Rainey, 2006; Kotter, 2012; Porter, 2011). Public service relevance is a term used to underscore
the value that public sector organizations provide the communities they serve. Further,
contemporary public service relevance relates to the importance of continued vigilance directed
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 34
toward maintaining pace with evolving public demands, because constant adaptations are
instrumental to providing valued services.
Purpose of the Study
Public Sector Organizational Change Model
The purpose of this study was to develop a process that facilitated not only relevant
organizational reform in the LAFD, but also the development of an inclusive, participatory
model for sustainable organizational change that maintained practical application for the public
sector in general. The investigation focused on collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders,
including focused outreach and partnerships with Los Angeles citizen groups to create a global
model for meaningful organizational improvement.
Strategic Planning Value in the LAFD
As a public sector guardian for more than 4 million residents in the 469 square miles
constituting the second-largest city in the United States, the LAFD has a civil obligation to
provide optimal, adaptive, and community-focused services that prioritize public safety and
emergency services. These ambitious endeavors were pursued through a collaborative and
participative strategic planning process designed to improve the previous LAFD organizational
vision, mission, and core values statements, as well as to establish previously nonexistent
corresponding goals, strategies, tactics, and benchmarks necessary to pursue the renewed LAFD
vision.
The LAFD, in need of greater organizational direction and a substantive plan, embarked
on an innovative, inclusive, and community-oriented process to develop a service model
specifically designed to maintain pace with changing public demands. The LAFD collaborated
with USC, the Mayor’s Office of Budget and Innovation, and the Office of the Los Angeles City
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 35
Council Public Safety Committee chair to form a strategic planning committee that was charged
with the unprecedented responsibility for the development of a contemporary, relevant LAFD
strategic plan.
The committee initiated comprehensive assessments that focused on input from a wide
variety of internal and external stakeholders. Attention was centered on trend analysis, literary
research, participative feedback, and department evaluations.
More specifically, the committee reviewed strategic planning literature, evaluated
numerous public safety peer agencies, researched public safety best practices, and analyzed
previous Los Angeles City Council motions, audit findings, and legal actions.
LAFD organizational reform concerns were collaboratively addressed with numerous
internal and external stakeholders during environmental assessment processes that included the
following topics: leadership, culture, public safety, emergency services, emergency response
times, resource deployment, resource optimization, personnel workloads, personnel staffing
levels, fire suppression and EMS trends, property losses, human resources management,
professional standards, risk management, ethics, equal opportunity, diversity, work
environments, discriminatory practices, discipline, complaint processes, communications,
civilianization, fiscal sustainability, health care, and performance metrics.
A Community-Focused, Collaborative Approach to Public Sector Strategic Planning
The LAFD, often regarded as a paramilitaristic, hierarchical organization, was criticized
on many fronts by elected officials, labor organizations, and stakeholders for failing to provide
progressive leadership and direction. In fact, former City Controller Laura Chick (2008)
excoriated the department when she maintained that the LAFD was lacking in leadership,
understanding of a vision, and a plan. Numerous City Council motions, external audits, legal
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 36
settlements, internal assessments, and internal complaints made it increasingly apparent that the
LAFD organizational model had yet to undergo the necessary improvements to ensure
contemporary relevance, and thus necessitating constructive reform.
Amid significant ongoing LAFD budget reductions and continued pressures from elected
officials (i.e., mayor, City Council, city administrative officer, city controller), several
councilmembers initiated motions that mandated LAFD action and improvement on varying
issues. A case in point occurred when the LAFD was directed to develop a “restoration plan” as a
preliminary means to ensure improvements to the existing LAFD model once budget allocations
increased in upcoming fiscal years. However, the connotation associated with a restoration plan
intimated that efforts should be directed toward restoring the department to previous form, a
condition that would only serve to perpetuate a less contemporary model.
Therefore, in an attempt to develop a modernized LAFD organizational model, the idea
of a restoration plan mired in the existing hierarchical form was abandoned for a more
contemporary strategic plan that adopted a collaborative and inclusive approach. This innovative
approach was designed to offer a transformed perspective, wherein optimal public safety and
emergency services would be achieved by supplanting rigid, linear managerial paradigms with
greater organizational attention to community-focused, participative stakeholder collaboration.
Of note is the fact that from the assemblage of volunteers in 1869 to the progression of a
professional department in 1886 and the inception of this proposed collaborative approach to
strategic planning, the LAFD had never developed a comprehensive strategic plan. Therefore, it
is important to recognize that to be effective, any progressive innovation or plan that may deviate
from proud, storied, and entrenched LAFD cultural norms should be adequately researched and
analyzed prior to its development.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 37
Research and analyses conducted prior to the development of a proposed LAFD
organizational change model indicated that strategic planning processes that incorporated a
community-focused, collaborative, and participative approach proved more effective in public
sector applications (Agócs, 1997; Borins, 2000; Bozeman, 1993; Bryson, 2010; Burke, 2002;
Burnes, 2004; Cunningham & Kempling, 2009; Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003; Facer & Rainey,
1996; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Golembiewski, 1985; Hendry, 1996; Hennessey, 1998;
Hooijberg & Choi, 2001; Kotter, 2012; Lewin, 1947; Lines, 2004; Nutt & Backoff, 1993;
Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; Porter, 2011; Rainey, 1999; Robertson & Seneviratne, 1995; Trice &
Beyer, 1993; Van De Ven & Poole, 1995; Van Wart, 2003).
Summary
Today’s public administrators are required to factor numerous competing internal and
external influences into decision-making processes. Similarly, fire service officials are subject to
many of the same concerns (e.g., political agendas, job insecurities, union alliances, constituent
demands, budget allocations, bureaucracies, legislation, technological advancements,
privatization and civilianization efforts) that affect the implementation of organizational change.
However, it is vital that fire service leaders negotiate through resistive pressures that perpetuate
obsolete trends, and demonstrate the strategic leadership and innovative adaptability to recognize
when it is most opportune to successfully initiate organizational improvements.
Data derived from the NFPA substantiate dramatic shifts in emergency service trends,
supporting a compelling argument for strategic leadership, innovative adaptability, and a
paradigm shift in emergency services nationwide. Nationally, during the past three decades, the
number of fire department emergency incident responses has nearly tripled, whereas
paradoxically, fire-related incidents have fallen markedly. In fact, in 2015, only 4% of all fire
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 38
department responses involved fires (Ahrens, 2017). The increase in the number of fire
department responses was directly attributable to medical aid and rescue calls. Nearly two thirds
(64%) of national incident responses involved medical aid or rescue, and more dramatically in
Los Angeles, approximately 85% of incident responses involved a medical or rescue component
(Ahrens, 2017; LAFD Data Analysis Unit, personal communication, April 22, 2016).
LAFD emergency service trends exemplify the ongoing challenges facing one department
in a large metropolitan city. However, this study and nationwide trends indicating the need for
fire service reform more broadly serve to characterize greater fire service concerns. Further,
these concerns also have application to the public sector in general, as effective and proactive
public sector leaders must continually balance organizational challenges and competing
influences with the delivery of optimal services.
Arguably, the means to provide optimal public services require the ability to recognize
when organizational change is necessary and subsequently ensure the development and
implementation of reforms that provide greater relevance to the community served. This study
addresses a public sector organizational change model that is supported by research indicating
that a community-focused, collaborative, and participative approach to strategic planning is
effective.

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 39
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
This chapter provides a review of public sector organizational change literature in the
context of its contribution to the research question being studied: How might a contemporarily
relevant model for public sector organizational change that prioritizes public services be
developed?
The first section of this chapter briefly describes public sector organizations and their
management, then segues into the second area, which identifies dominant organizational change
theories and models with specific reference to those applicable to this study. The third area
bridges theory and practice by suggesting the development of a strategic planning process for
overcoming the impediments to progressive change in public sector organizations, and more
specifically the LAFD. The fourth section details strategic planning value in the public sector
thus reinforcing the value derived from comprehensive, collaborative, and community-focused
strategic planning processes. Finally, a summary with overall conclusions describes opportunities
to implement effective public sector organizational change.
Public Sector Organizations
The public sector, recognized as a segment of an economic system that is controlled by
national, state, and local governments, broadly encompasses areas such as public services, social
programs, and infrastructure. Examples of public services include law enforcement and fire
protection. Universal health care (e.g., Medicaid, Medicare) and social security represent social
programs, whereas examples of infrastructure include public transportation and communications.
Organizations in the public sector often provide all-inclusive services that benefit society
in general. To provide these services, public organizations are generally funded through taxes,
fees, and allocations from other governmental levels. For example, the Federal Emergency
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 40
Management Administration might grant federal funds and resources to state or local
municipalities following major disasters, and the California Office of Emergency Services might
apportion resources to support local regions in emergency need.
Compared to their private sector counterparts, public sector organizations are governed
by legislatures, politicians, councils, boards, and commissions, whereas private sector
organizations are controlled by trade commissions, chief executive officers, chief financial
officers, and presidents. Public administrators must effectively balance the competing influences
associated with their governing bodies and civil service rules, unionized labor organizations, and
demanding constituents, whereas their private sector equivalents must balance the influences of
their controlling bodies with open markets, profit margins, and shareholders (Bolton, 2003;
Borins, 2000; Perry & Rainey, 1988; Robertson & Seneviratne, 1995; Van Wart, 2003).
Common challenges associated with public sector organizations, the public-versus-
private argument, and the manner in which public sector organizations manage change are topics
that have been researched and analyzed for many years (Bolton, 2003; Borins, 2000; Bozeman,
1993; Facer & Rainey, 1996; Golembiewski, 1985; Hooijberg & Choi, 2001; Lewin, 1947; Nutt
& Backoff, 1993; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; Rainey, 1999; Van De Ven & Poole, 1995).
Ultimately, the public-versus-private organizational management dynamic differs in
many respects (e.g., strategic plans, visions, missions, principles, goals, performance metrics,
leadership, discretion, authority, cultural ideologies, change resistance, etc.), and it is often
recognized that public managers are encumbered more with political influences, constrained
authority, and limited discretionary latitude (Borins, 2000; Bolton, 2003; Fernandez & Rainey,
2006; Golembiewski, 1985; Van Wart, 2003).
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 41
Therefore, to be effective, organizational management practices must be strategic, not
arbitrary or universally applied (Bryson, 2010; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Kotter, 2012; Porter,
2011). For example, in recent decades, many public administrators experienced limited success
with efforts to employ new public management practices based on private sector principles
(Borins, 2000; Buelens & Van den Broeck, 2007; Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003; Kellis & Ran,
2015; Lager, 2010). The aforementioned concerns reinforce the importance of focusing on
contemporarily relevant organizational theories and models that prove most effective in public
organizations.
Public Sector Organizational Change Theories and Models
Organizational change theories maintain significant value in public administration,
because their theoretical foundations provide conceptual explanations for the etiologic factors or
catalysts associated with organizational change (Van De Ven & Poole, 1995). Organizational
change models also offer value because they provide tangible plans and procedures for
implementing change. Nonetheless, numerous theories and models with varying ideologies exist
in the literature that offer not only a greater understanding of organizational change aspects, but
also clarity regarding factors such as reasons for change, methods of change, and change
outcomes (Cunningham & Kempling, 2009; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Golembiewski, 1985;
Kotter, 2012; Lewin, 1947; Van De Ven & Poole, 1995).
Organizational theories “attempt to explain why organizations exist; how they function
internally; and how they reflect, respond to, or influence their environments” (Greenwald, 2008,
p. 48). Research related to organizational change theories involves numerous factors that include
but are not limited to areas such as leadership, culture, ideologies, values, norms, and ethics
(Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003; Facer & Rainey, 1996; Robbins & Judge, 2010). However,
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 42
regardless of theoretical inclinations regarding organizational change, one common denominator
exists: people—because it is people who ultimately comprise an organization and socialize, to
varying extents, into an organization’s cultural norms (Aydin & Ceylan, 2009; Burke, 2002;
Golembiewski, 1985; Lewin, 1947; Lines, 2004; Rainey, 1999; Robbins & Judge, 2010).
Many public sector organizational change theories offer holistic approaches for
introducing change. However, for the purposes of this study, it is important to focus on related
theories that prove most applicable to environments in which values, beliefs, and norms are
deeply entrenched in organizational culture (e.g., public safety, fire, police, military; Burke,
2002; Cunningham & Kempling, 2009; Lines, 2004). Examination of organizational change
theories indicated that rational systems and contingency theories maintain the greatest
application to this study.
Simply stated, rational systems theory asserts that organizational purpose is the
achievement of organizational goals. The nexus between rational systems theory and this study
can be characterized by Greenwald (2008), who stated, “Members of organizations do not
merely receive goals from some outside force; they develop goals through internal processes” (p.
51).
Contingency theory is predicated on dependent relationships in which one or more
variables depend on another for existence. Consequently, contingencies or potential outcomes
typically vary more than rational systems theoretical perspectives, which are more linearly tied
into organizational goals. The important variable in this context remains the potential for an
organization’s environment to change very rapidly, and thus the reactions or fallout resulting
from these changes can immediately affect organizational services, effectiveness, and
sustainability. Public sector organizations, to remain effective, must respond to changes in
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 43
political influences, labor forces, and constituent demands with the agility to continually ensure
optimal public services. Greenwald (2008) recognized this necessary agility: “organizations must
respond to changes in markets, funding opportunities, politics, technology, and public values” (p.
51).
Although numerous organizational change models identified in the literature
foundationally differ and maintain unique attributes, many commonalities do exist, and for this
reason, several models have been categorized based on these commonalities. For example, Van
de Ven and Poole (1995) categorized organizational change models as teleological, evolutionary,
dialectical, and life cycle.
Teleological models (planned change) and evolutionary models (adaptive change) are
regarded as dichotomous due to their proactively planned versus reactively adaptive approaches
(Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). In teleological contexts, internal proactive leaders are influential in
driving organizational reform, whereas in contrast, evolutionary model tenets espouse external
environmental factors as those that stimulate the greatest change (Carr, Hard, & Tranant, 1996;
Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001).
Teleological models, which focus on goals and the end state, include most strategic
planning models (Chakravarthy & Lorange, 1991). Briefly stated, teleological models develop a
vision and goals (end state), initiate actions (tactics), and monitor progress (evaluation), which
are all common to effective strategic planning processes (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995).
Proponents endorse a continual process of goal formulation, strategy implementation,
performance metrics, and informed data-driven decisions (Bolton, 2003; Van de Ven & Poole,
1995).
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 44
Teleological strategic planning models embrace factors such as organizational strategy,
environmental assessments, stakeholder input, and when warranted, reorganization (Armenakis
et al., 1993; Bolton, 2003; Bryson, 2011; Collins & Porras, 2011; Cunningham & Kempling,
2009; Facer & Rainey, 1996; Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Lines, 2004; Oswald,
Mossholder, & Harris, 1994). Further, to counter organizational change barriers, such as
culturally entrenched norms, belief systems, and individuals who resist change, contemporary
teleological strategies focus on leadership, vision, mission, metrics, data-driven decisions,
collaboration, delegation, and proactive plan change (Kezar, 2001).
Organizational development models represent another teleological approach that also has
application to this study, largely due to the value placed on recent trends and innovative
philosophies that value greater emphasis on collaboration, inclusivity, and participation in
organizational change and management processes (Armenakis et al., 1993; Aydin & Ceylan,
2009; Golembiewski, 1985; Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Lewin, 1947; Lines, 2004; Robbins &
Judge, 2010). Organizational development principles value progression from linear,
hierarchically entrenched autocracies to more flattened, collaborative, and participative
management styles.
Evolutionary models (e.g., social, biological, political) tend to be more deterministic,
adaptive, and reactionary to environmental circumstances, and thus support the ideology that
organizational sustainability will be improved by reactively managing change as events transpire.
Correspondingly, these models concentrate on organizational inability to proactively anticipate
or plan for change (Kezar, 2001; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Whether public organizations
demonstrate the ability to anticipate or plan for change, it is important to note the value of
organizational adaptiveness in which public services evolve to maintain pace with public
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 45
demands (e.g., greater focus on implementing substantive deployment changes related to fire and
EMS trends).
Dialectical models center on the premise that contradictory or opposing organizational
norms, values, and beliefs (e.g., community–individual, political–social) exist concurrently in
organizations and compete for power and control, eventually influencing change when driving
forces overcome resistive forces (Lewin, 1947; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995).
Life cycle models, sometimes coupled with evolutionary models, focus on the
individual’s role in the organization, wherein change occurs as individuals adapt to
organizational life cycles (e.g., organizational growth, maturation, and decline; Kezar, 2001; Van
de Ven & Poole, 1995).
Numerous influences affect an organization’s ability to implement change, and whether
these influences are created by leadership, followership, planning, politics, economics, societal
trends, culture, or otherwise, any deviation from entrenched norms may encounter significant
resistance (Facer & Rainey, 1996; Golembiewski, 1985; Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Lines,
2004; Robbins & Judge, 2010). Van Wart (2003) adeptly bridged the value and importance of
leadership, culture, and strategic planning in organizational processes:
In organizations, effective leadership provides higher-quality and more efficient goods
and services; it provides a sense of cohesiveness, personal development, and higher levels
of satisfaction among those conducting the work: and it provides an overarching sense of
direction and vision, an alignment with the environment, a healthy mechanism for
innovation and creativity, and a resource for invigorating the organizational culture. (p.
214)
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 46
Organizational culture, often described as the informal, underlying organization that
constitutes the norms, values, and beliefs of individuals in an organization, prominently factors
into the effectiveness of change initiatives and ultimately affects performance (Aydin & Ceylan,
2009; Robbins & Judge, 2010; Trice & Beyer, 1993).
Lewin’s (1947) organizational change model represents a contribution to the
understanding of organizational behavior, culture, and change, because he identified the
significance of resistance to change in militaristic cultures during the World War II era, which
also remains relevant today. Management theories and practices advocated by Lewin have
influenced the field of public administration for decades, and although the merits of Lewin’s
philosophies have been scrutinized more recently, academics have argued for the value of his
seminal work in social conflict, leadership styles, and planned change (Burnes, 2004; Hendry,
1996). A simplistic, cursory overview of Lewin’s three-step model of change process, which is
often cited as his most significant contribution to a planned approach to organizational change, is
offered in the following paragraphs.
Step 1: Unfreezing. Lewin (1947) asserted that behavior (group and organizational) is
based on a “quasi-stationary equilibrium supported by a complex field of driving and restraining
forces” (Burnes, 2004, p. 985) that maintains an ability to destabilize organizational equilibrium
when the driving forces (change motivators) exert greater force than the restraining forces
(change resisters; Burnes, 2004). Thus, obsolete organizational patterns, behavior, or culture
need to be removed (unfrozen) prior to successful adoption of a more contemporary and relevant
pattern, behavior, or culture.
Step 2: Change. Lewin (1947) approached change as an iterative learning process
wherein the complexity of driving and resistive forces caused groups or organizations to progress
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 47
to more acceptable behaviors. He reinforced the importance of a planned approach for
organizational change. “To break open the shell of complacency and self-righteousness it is
sometimes necessary to bring about an emotional stir up” (Lewin, 1951, p. 229).
Step 3: Refreezing. Stabilization of group change or organizational reform is needed to
establish a renewed “quasi-stationary equilibrium,” wherein to remain effective, the newly
assimilated equilibrium must be relatively consistent with the learner’s ideologies. “In
organizational terms, refreezing often requires changes to organizational culture, norms, policies
and practices” (Burnes, 2004, p. 986).
Lewin’s model addresses the concept that organizational change and its counterpart,
organizational equilibrium, are influenced by both driving forces and resistive forces, and until
the motivational driving forces overcome the resistive forces, organizational, cultural, and
individual change will not be achieved (Facer & Rainey, 1996). However, once the pressure for
organizational change increases and reaches a critical state that overcomes resistance, the change
process will involve progressive iteration and learning that facilitate organizational reform
(Lewin, 1947).
Even greater cultural influences exist in militaristic and semi-militaristic public service
agencies, which also apply to the fire service: “Police forces, military organizations, and
churches are examples of agencies where the informal organization and its underlying values and
norms will shape the organization and the way it carries out its mission” (Cunningham &
Kempling, 2009, p. 341).
Considering the influences of organizational culture and benefits of contemporary
leadership approaches, Cunningham and Kempling (2009) identified the organizational change
principles and planning processes they found most germane to the public sector:
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 48
1. Forming a guiding coalition;
2. Recognizing and responding to people who might be resistant to the change;
3. Establishing a need for change;
4. Articulating envisioned outcomes;
5. Establishing a process to implement the plan;
6. Focusing on continuous improvement rather than objective rightness of measurement;
7. Developing a commitment plan;
8. Manage by walking around. (p. 333)
Ultimately, Cunningham and Kempling (2009) reinforced many of the same principles
related to public sector organizational change that are supported by the literature, recognizing the
importance of committed teams, resistance to change, need for change, visionary leadership,
planning processes and a plan, continual improvement, and effective management (Agócs, 1997;
Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Hennessey, 1998; Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Lewin, 1947; Lines,
2004; Van Wart, 2003).
Cunningham and Kempling (2009) supported their findings by referencing the
contributions of Kotter (2012) and Lewin (1947). In Leading Change, Kotter (2012), a
recognized authority on organizational leadership and change, communicated an organizational
change process that paralleled the tenets identified in the work of Cunningham and Kempling
(2009). Specifically, Kotter (2012), who believed more in leading rather than managing change,
argued the merits of the following eight-stage process:
1. Establishing a sense of urgency;
2. Creating the guiding coalition;
3. Developing a vision and strategy;
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 49
4. Communicating the change vision;
5. Empowering broad-based action;
6. Generating short term wins;
7. Consolidating gains and producing more change;
8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture. (adapted from p. 23)
Bridging Organizational Change Theory and Practice Through Strategic Planning
Historically, public administrators have been challenged with the implementation of
effective organizational change, and correspondingly, balancing the delivery of optimal, efficient
public services with numerous internal and external competing influences (e.g., leadership,
management, culture, political agendas, union perspectives, constituent demands, privatization
and civilianization efforts, economic fluctuations, budget allocations, bureaucracies, legislative
reforms, technological advancements, etc.). It is important to focus on organizational leadership
and management theories that contribute to the development of a substantive, contemporary, and
practical model for public sector organizational change (Barzelay, 1992; Borins, 2000; Bryson &
Roering, 1988; Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003; Drucker, 1973; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Kotter
& Schlesinger, 2008).
As previously discussed, teleological and organizational development change models
parallel many objectives established in the development of contemporarily relevant strategic
plans (e.g., vision, mission, strategy implementation, stakeholder input, environmental
assessments, collaboration, inclusivity, goal formulation, performance metrics, data-driven
decisions, and plan changes up to and including reorganization if necessary; Armenakis et al.,
1993; Bryson, 2011; Collins & Porras, 2011; Cunningham & Kempling, 2009; Fernandez &
Rainey, 2006; Kotter, 2012; Lines, 2004; Oswald et al., 1994).
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 50
Cunningham and Kempling (2009) recognized the importance of committed teams,
resistance to change, need for change, visionary leadership, planning processes and a plan,
continual improvement, and effective management. Similarly, in Leading Change, Kotter (2012)
reinforced the principles of urgency, teamwork, vision, strategy, positive reinforcement,
communication, and institutionalization of change. Last, Lewin (1947) expressed the concept
that organizational change will not be achieved until motivational driving forces overcome
resistive forces.
Hundreds of theories and numerous typologies of models exist in the literature, many of
which provide insightful information regarding public sector organizational change. Although
several models maintain inherent components that have application to this study, and thus
highlighting the merits of a multiple-model approach, research has indicated that teleological and
organizational development models provide a conceptual foundation that have greatest
application, because many of the tenets associated with strategic planning, inclusive
collaboration, and group participation correlate with postulates established in these models
(Agócs, 1997; Armenakis et al., 1993; Borins, 2000; Bozeman, 1993; Bryson, 2010; Burke,
2002; Burnes, 2004; Cunningham & Kempling, 2009; Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003; Facer &
Rainey, 1996; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Golembiewski, 1985; Hennessey, 1998; Hooijberg &
Choi, 2001; Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Lewin, 1947; Lines, 2004; Nutt &
Backoff, 1993; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; Porter, 2011; Rainey, 1999; Robertson & Seneviratne,
1995; Trice & Beyer, 1993; Van De Ven & Poole, 1995; Van Wart, 2003).
Additionally, the organizational change and leadership theories developed by Lewin
(1947), Kotter (2012), and Cunningham and Kempling (2009) contributed to the development of
this study, which sought to develop not only a practical model for public sector organizational
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 51
change, but more specifically an effective method for the development of a collaborative,
inclusive, and participative approach to public sector strategic planning.
Strategic Planning Value in the Public Sector
Strategic planning is a comprehensive time bound process an organization uses to clarify
direction, articulate its values or core beliefs, define its mission, identify its most
important goals and the strategies to achieve them while assessing the environment in
which it operates and providing a framework to measure and monitor progress. (Culley,
2014, p. 8)
Effective strategic planning involves ongoing processes, not simply a product, wherein
efforts are directed at aligning resources to pursue organizational visions for the future and prior
to charting a course, or navigating a directional roadmap, an organization must first establish its
position, vision, mission, core values, goals, strategies, tactics, and benchmarks (Bryson, 2010;
Burke, 2002; Cunningham & Kempling, 2009; Golembiewski, 1985; Kotter, 2012; Lewin,
1947).
Culley (2014) reinforced the value that strategic planning processes offer public sector
organizations, stating these plans include the following noninclusive list of benefits:
● Encompasses organizational ambitions;
● Integrates management/employee thinking for a common purpose;
● Provides a framework for action for management and employees;
● Identifies goals and strategies in a measurable way for all to review;
● Explains the significance of environmental factors;
● Creates value for customers and stakeholders;
● Establishes specified time frames to achieve expectations;
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 52
● Identifies resources needed to achieve the goals and strategies;
● Provides a coherent structure to prioritize and allocate resources. (p. 6)
Similar to Borins (2000), Culley (2014) articulated the opportune time for the
development of strategic plans: “1) new leadership, 2) changes inside or outside the organization,
and 3) the old ways don’t seem to work anymore” (p. 9).
Public sector organizational effectiveness will continually be measured, both internally
and externally, against the aforementioned strategic planning variables and the value or services
offered to the community; ultimately, the determinants of value will be defined more by
community-related performance metrics than peripheral competing influences. Therefore,
organizational vision (direction), mission (purpose), and values (beliefs) must align with services
most valued by the community (Bryson, 2011; Bolton, 2003).
Vision statements are extremely important to strategic planning processes because they
represent powerful declarations about organizational direction. Vision statements communicate
compelling and inspirational views of the desired future. Further, more comprehensive visions
often describe core values, customer services, and positive outlooks for the future of the
organization (Bryson, 2011; Collins & Porras, 2011; Kotter, 2012; Oswald et al., 1994).
Mission statements, also critical to strategic planning processes, are short, succinct
statements that express organizational purpose, and thus include services, focus, and unique
attributes. Effective mission statements not only define the reasons for organizational existence,
but also serve to inspire employees, guide activities, and promote the organization (Bryson,
2011; Collins & Porras, 2011; Green & Medlin, 2003; Keeling, 2013; Kotter, 2012; Mullane,
2002).
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 53
Core values statements, also essential to effective strategic planning, represent
fundamental organizational ideologies and normative beliefs, which serve as guiding principles
that influence individual priorities and behavior. Whether applicable to public, private, or
nonprofit organizations, core values shape culture, ethical standards, and decision-making
processes (Bryson, 2011; Bryson & Roering, 1988; Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008;
Lines, 2004).
The following figure (Figure 2.1) illustrates the prominent strategic plan pillars:
Figure 2.1. Strategic Plan Model
Note. Adapted from Culley (2014, p. 14).
Additional variables that are of paramount importance to effective planning include
strategic goals, strategic choices, and resource allocation; environmental assessments involving
internal stakeholders, internal strengths, internal weaknesses, external stakeholders, external
opportunities, and external threats; and macro-level considerations such as the political,
economic, sociological, technological, environmental, and legal concerns affecting an
organization (Berson, Halevy, Shamir, & Erez, 2015; Collins & Porras, 2011; Culley, 2014;
Oswald et al., 1994).
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 54
Organizational environmental assessments are vital to strategic planning processes,
because they provide the basis for relating an organization to its environment. In the Harvard
Business Essentials Series (2005), “SWOT II: Looking Inside for Strengths and Weaknesses”
included the identification of core competencies, financial capacity, and organizational change
readiness. Additionally, in the Harvard Business Essentials Series (2005), “SWOT Analysis I:
Looking Outside for Threats and Opportunities” core elements identified were those related to
identifying trends affecting the organization, customers, and changes in the competitive arena.
Last, according to “The Failure of Strategic Planning” (Lauenstein, 1986), successful strategic
planning embraces core competencies, distinctive competencies, core values, critical success
factors, and leadership competencies as important strategic management variables.
Comprehensive environmental assessments or scans are critical, in that their formulation
facilitates the determination of organizational strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats,
which further translate to a better understanding of strategic choices. Organizational strengths
and weaknesses should be evaluated based on organizational competencies, financial condition,
management, and culture, because these factors are critical to formulating specific strategies to
achieve organizational goals (Harvard Business Essentials Series, 2005b).
Informed strategic choices require a comprehensive analysis of internal organizational
strengths and weaknesses and external opportunities and threats. Strengths represent internal
capabilities that enhance performance, whereas weaknesses are characteristics that reduce or
prevent performance. Opportunities represent areas that may be capitalized on, and threats are
areas of concern that require mitigation (Harvard Business Essentials Series, 2005a).
A political, economic, sociological, technological, ecological, and legal analysis
represents the evaluation of macro environmental contexts in which organizations operate.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 55
Macro environmental factors affect organizational operations and therefore must be incorporated
into strategic planning processes. Political factors include governmental regulations (e.g., tax
policies, minimum wage laws); economic factors affect customer purchasing capabilities and
organizational costs (e.g., interest rates, minimum wage); social aspects are demographic and
cultural considerations that affect the market and customer (e.g., age groups, immigrants, health);
and technological factors affect business or industry, often through increased efficiencies (e.g.,
engineering, automation; Bolton, 2003; Bryson & Roering, 1988; Culley, 2014; Facer & Rainey,
1996).
Summary
A research review and integration of literature related to public sector management,
organizational change models, and LAFD trends were conducted to provide a basis for
determining the most effective means to develop a contemporary model for relevant public
sector organizational change, and more specifically, LAFD organizational reform.
In the context of this study, organizational change models (e.g., teleological, strategic
planning, and organizational development) and research conducted by Cunningham and
Kempling (2009), Kotter (2012), and Lewin (1947) reinforced many commonalities related to
public sector organizational change that are supported by the literature (e.g., need for change,
planning processes and a plan, vision, goals, leadership, resistance to change, continual
improvement, and effective management).
A dominant theme emerged from the analyses of multiple organizational theories and
models supporting the ideology that successful achievement of progressive organizational reform
should include the development of strategic planning processes that embrace pluralistic
ideologies, collaborative relationships, and a communal, participative approach (Agócs, 1997;
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 56
Armenakis et al., 1993; Borins, 2000; Bozeman, 1993; Bryson, 2010; Burke, 2002; Burnes,
2004; Collins & Porras, 2011; Cunningham & Kempling, 2009; Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003;
Facer & Rainey, 1996; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Golembiewski, 1985; Hennessey, 1998;
Hooijberg & Choi, 2001; Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Lewin, 1947; Lines, 2004;
Nutt & Backoff, 1993; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; Porter, 2011; Rainey, 1999; Robertson &
Seneviratne, 1995; Trice & Beyer, 1993; Van De Ven & Poole, 1995; Van Wart, 2003).

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 57
Chapter 3: Methodology, Data Analysis, and Outcomes
Introduction and Philosophical Assumptions
The methodology for developing a contemporary model for public sector organizational
change, and more specifically LAFD organizational reform through strategic planning, was
premised on a qualitative research approach in which procedures were conducted in field
environments that facilitated interactive discourse, participation, and collaboration among
individual and group participants.
Qualitative research involves inquiries into participants’ subjective interpretations, with a
goal of accurately determining the meaning of their inputs and applying the data to the issue
being studied. Correspondingly, collaborative interaction and open-ended questioning techniques
were employed with participants during data input and interpretation processes to develop a
greater understanding of organizational concerns (Babbie, 2007; Creswell, 2014; Fink, 2012;
Marshall & Rossman, 2011).
Consistent with qualitative methods, an emerging research design was employed to
determine stakeholder perspectives in various natural field settings wherein data were both
inductively and deductively analyzed to extrapolate common themes. Researchers solicited input
from stakeholders, collected data from multiple sources, interpreted thousands of inputs, and
categorized the information based on emergent themes (Creswell, 2014; Krueger & Casey,
2009).
Of note was the importance of cooperative exchanges between the researchers and
participants to facilitate not only the identification, but also the shape of themes that emerged
from numerous interactions, presentations, assessments, questions, surveys, and responses.
“Qualitative research is needed to study a group or population, identify variables that can be
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 58
measured, or hear silent voices” (Creswell, 2014, p. 37).
Subsequent to participative environmental assessments, researchers interpreted multiple
sources of data through both inductive and deductive reasoning processes. Inductively,
researchers analyzed data to consolidate thousands of inputs into categories based on common
themes. Deductively, researchers retrospectively reviewed the derived categories to determine
whether additional information supported these themes. Due to the substantial number of inputs,
research saturation occurred wherein additional data collection did not reveal new insights or
information that warranted additional categorization (Creswell, 2014; Gibbs, 2007; Miles &
Huberman, 1994; Vogt & Johnson, 2011).
Qualitative researchers have acknowledged the existence of philosophical assumptions,
differing perspectives, and individual biases, and in part, it was for these reasons that this
methodology was suitable for this study. Qualitative research, often connoted with interpretative
research, includes inherent challenges, because researchers may interact extensively with study
participants, and with these relationships comes the potential influence of subjective biases,
values, and perspectives that may compromise the accuracy or validity of research findings
(Creswell, 2014; Fowler, 2009; Gibbs, 2007; Krueger & Casey, 2009; Miles & Huberman,
1994).
The researcher involved in this study recognized that qualitative analyses are subject to
subjective assumptions and interpretations. Consequently, to minimize these influences, no fewer
than three researchers, as opposed to one, participated in the review, analysis, and categorization
of data based on perceived emerging themes.
Philosophical assumptions are influenced by subjective beliefs, values, and variables that
are not always discerned in research practices, and it is therefore commonly understood that
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 59
these influences can affect research processes, design, and outcomes. Creswell (2014), a
recognized authority in academic research and design, used the phrase philosophical worldview
to describe four philosophical assumptions, or paradigms, that are prominent in the literature:
● Postpositivism: determination, reductionism, empirical observation and measurement,
theory verification
● Constructivism: understanding, multiple participant meanings, social and historical
construction, theory generation
● Transformative: political, power and justice oriented, collaborative, change-oriented
● Pragmatism: consequence of actions, problem-centered, pluralistic, real world practice
oriented (adapted from p. 6)
The prominent paradigm, or worldview, most applicable to this study involved pragmatist
philosophies, largely due to applied focus on the problem, encouraged diversity of opinion, and
real-world practicality. Additionally, the pragmatist perspective allows for multiple methods,
techniques, and procedures to collect and analyze data (Berg, 2001; Charmaz, 2006; Creswell,
2014; Marshall & Rossman, 2011).
Inherently, the methodological approach to this LAFD study had numerous interrelated
processes that followed a logical order of sequential steps; therefore, the methodological outline
followed a linear, step-by-step modeling sequence that addressed research design, participants,
procedures, instrumentation, and analyses. Creswell (2014) adeptly identified these qualitative
research challenges:
We examine the qualitative data working inductively from particulars to more general
perspectives, whether these perspectives are called themes, dimensions, codes, or
categories. One helpful way to see this process is to recognize it as working through
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 60
multiple levels of abstraction, starting with the raw data and forming larger and larger
categories. Recognizing the highly interrelated set of activities of data collection,
analysis, and report writing, we do not always know clearly which stage we are in. (p. 43)
Research Design, Participants, Procedures, and Instrumentation
This study of the LAFD was conducted in collaboration with representatives from USC,
the Los Angeles Mayor’s Office of Budget and Innovation, and the Office of the Los Angeles
City Council Public Safety Committee chair. The researcher assumed the responsibility of
strategic plan chair (chair), formed a strategic planning committee (committee), and moved
forward with the unprecedented responsibility for the development of a contemporary and
relevant LAFD strategic plan.
Consistent with these collaborative pursuits, and as a means to solicit input from LAFD
internal and external stakeholders, the chair planned, organized, and facilitated focus group
meetings composed of representatives from the mayor’s office, City Council offices, Fire
Commission, chief legislative analyst’s office, city administrative office, labor organizations, a
private consulting firm (auditor), Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE), fire
chief, chief of staff, medical director, Employee Relations, Planning Section, Community
Liaison Office, Administrative Operations, Emergency Operations, Risk Management Section,
Metro Fire Communications, Professional Standards Division, Arson/Counter-Terrorism Section,
and others. Last, the committee reached out to city partners and peer agencies through online
surveys.
Several all-inclusive, department-wide meetings facilitated by the chair and committee
provided additional opportunities to solicit invaluable feedback from internal stakeholders,
external stakeholders, and sworn and civilian personnel. Information solicited during these
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 61
assessments focused on LAFD internal strengths and weaknesses, external opportunities and
threats (SWOT), as well as macro-environmental factors such as the political, economic,
sociological, technological, environmental, and legal (PESTEL) variables affecting the
organization. Additionally, internal online surveys were available to all employees interested in
offering feedback and ideas for improvement.
Concurrently, the chair, in partnership with DONE, eight Los Angeles neighborhood
council alliances and coalitions, and 96 Los Angeles neighborhood councils engaged in external
community stakeholder meetings to gather community perspectives regarding LAFD
performance. The neighborhood council system, which includes the presiding DONE, was
created in 1999 to “promote greater citizen participation in government and make government
more responsive to local needs” (Los Angeles City Charter, Article IX, Sec. 900) and is
responsible for providing support and facilitating communications among constituents, city
departments and governing officials.
Los Angeles neighborhood councils are city-certified local groups of people who live or
work in, own property in, or have some other connection to a neighborhood. Neighborhood
councils are responsible to advocate on behalf of their constituents regarding local areas of
concern, and create events and programs that respond to the unique needs of their community.
Composed of neighborhood council leaders from throughout the City of Los Angeles,
neighborhood alliances and coalitions are distinguished by region, issue, and sometimes, as a
citywide unit.
DONE, which contributed to LAFD organizational assessment processes by providing
and monitoring an online survey tool (SurveyMonkey.com) to document community input,
featured the LAFD strategic plan survey in several newsletters. Additional community input was
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 62
gathered through the online platform Nextdoor.com, reaching more than 40,000 registered
households in the community.
Neighborhood alliance and coalition meetings attended by the chair to garner additional
external stakeholder information included the following: Los Angeles Neighborhood Council
Coalition, Harbor Alliance of Neighborhood Councils, Valley Alliance of Neighborhood
Councils, West Regional Alliance of Councils, and South Los Angeles Alliance of
Neighborhood Councils. Similarly, the chair solicited input from the community at numerous
neighborhood council meetings.
Ultimately, the committee engaged in a comprehensive strategic planning assessment that
prioritized a community-focused, collaborative approach wherein input was solicited from a
wide variety of internal and external stakeholders. Attention was centered on literary research,
trend analyses, participative feedback, and department evaluations.
LAFD Strategic Plan Model: 21 Strategic Initiatives
The methodology for this public sector organizational change model was constructed
with progressive ideologies that centered on a collaborative approach to strategic planning.
Critical analyses of the methodological approach, organizational assessments, and collaborative
efforts associated with this study identified numerous interrelated processes that, when
practically applied, followed a logical order of sequential steps, identified herein as initiatives.
Initiative 1: Strategic Plan Committee Chair
The researcher assumed the role of strategic plan committee chair and project manager.
The chair should maintain the requisite leadership skills, project management experience, and
institutional and strategic planning knowledge to effectively oversee and interact with a strategic
planning committee, stakeholders (internal and external), public administrators, focus groups,
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 63
community council groups, etc., because these characteristics are vital to project success. “The
project manager is at the head of this project process, and has an important role of overseeing the
project team, and ultimately ensuring the project ends in success” (DuBois, Hanlon, Koch,
Nyatuga, & Kerr, 2015, p. 30).
Initiative 2: Strategic Plan Committee
The chair selected and organized a cohesive committee and supporting team-oriented
administrative personnel composed of members with the experience, knowledge, and ability to
(a) contribute to vision, mission, core values, and environmental assessment processes; (b)
provide technical documentation; (c) critically interpret and analyze data; and (d) assist with
technical writing. Multilateral engagement in strategic decision making often facilitates a
diversity of perspectives that will improve strategic planning processes. “Strategic decision
making in public organizations should be prone to involvements by numerous actors (especially
through boards, committees, task forces, and teams)” (Bryson & Roering, 1988, p. 995).
Initiative 3: Strategic Plan Project Management and Documentation
The chair assigned the role of documentation specialist to a committee member, who was
delegated with the responsibility to identify, describe, and document processes essential to
effective project management and the development of the strategic plan (e.g., project or task,
descriptive updates, responsibility, and status updates). Paschall (2013) maintained that it is
important to “develop a written planning document that can be used to track progress, record
results, and communicate status to members” (p. 16).
The work needed to document, implement, and monitor a beneficial workflow process is
labor intensive but well worth it. Your workflow process documents the goals of the firm,
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 64
metrics to use to benchmark the goals and the process you will use to ensure staff
supports the planners. (Davis, 2009, p. 14)
An exemplar of the strategic plan project management document listing three of the 21
initiatives is provided in the following table (Table 3.1):
Table 3.1. Strategic Plan Project Management Document
Project or Task Descriptive Updates Responsibility Status
1 Strategic Plan
Committee
Chair
● Date - Strategic Plan Chair
designated
Fire Chief or
LAFD Planning
Section
Complete
2 Strategic Plan
Committee
● Date – LAFD Strategic
Planning Committee selection,
orientation, and team building
Strategic Plan
Chair
Complete
3 Strategic Plan
Project
Management,
Documentation
● Date - Strategic Planning
Committee Documentation
specialist/ Chronicler
designated
Strategic Plan
Chair
Complete

Initiative 4: Organizational Advocacy and Support for the Strategic Plan
The chair drafted and submitted a formal document for organizational approval that
addressed not only the value of strategic planning, but also the positive impact a comprehensive
strategic plan would have on the organization. The department head demonstrated advocacy and
support (i.e., resources, personnel) for the strategic plan by approving and disseminating the
document throughout the organization.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 65
The inherent value of organizational advocacy for strategic planning, which should not be
overlooked or minimized, was corroborated by Wilson and Eilertsen (2010), who stated, “The
results suggest that an organization’s trust and confidence in strategic planning as a decision-
making discipline is a stronger indicator of potential success than the adoption of any particular
strategic planning technique or principle” (Abstract, para. 1).
Initiative 5: Vision, Mission, and Core Values Statement Assessment Document
To facilitate the development of meaningful organizational vision, mission, and core
values statements, the chair disseminated an internal organizational document that described and
defined strategic planning, strategic planning value, strategic planning processes and the
importance of vision, mission, and core values statements. The following topics were addressed:
● What is a strategic plan?
● Why is a strategic plan important?
● What major components or subject areas are involved in strategic planning?
● What is an organizational vision statement and why is it important?
● What is an organizational mission statement and why is it important?
● What are organizational core values and why are they important?
● What is an environmental assessment and why is an environmental assessment critical in
formulating a new strategic plan?
● What is a SWOT analysis and how is it used?
● What is a PESTEL analysis and how is it used?
Initiative 6: Vision, Mission, and Core Values Statement Focus Group Assessment
The committee recognized the paramount nature of vision, mission, and core values
statements, which are not only essential to effective strategic planning processes, but also
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 66
communicate organizational direction, purpose, and beliefs, respectively. Most notably,
inspirational vision statements encourage an envisioned future; compelling mission statements
reinforce reasons for existence; and influential core values statements strengthen principled
convictions.
For these reasons, the committee (a) reviewed applicable literature; (b) developed and
disseminated the strategic plan vision, mission, and core values assessment document; and (c)
developed a strategic plan vision, mission, and core values PowerPoint presentation prior to
conducting related focus group assessments with top LAFD command and administrative staff
and internal stakeholders (i.e., fire chief, two chief deputies, four deputy chiefs, and two fire
commissioners) to determine their perspectives regarding contemporary LAFD vision, mission,
and values. The assessment document was proactively disseminated to each participant prior to
the meeting to encourage preparedness, facilitate substantive input, and assist with the
development of initial drafts for renewed LAFD vision, mission, and core values statements.
The focus group meeting and the corresponding PowerPoint presentation centered on
collaborative interaction designed to identify key words that would provide the foundation for
more contemporarily relevant vision, mission, and core values statements. Additionally, to
improve understanding of strategic planning processes, a cursory overview of environmental
scan procedures was addressed.
The chair presented the PowerPoint during the focus group assessment to remain
organized, cultivate interest, and most importantly, solicit valued stakeholder input.
Concurrently, the committee facilitated discourse, group interaction, and documentation with 3-
by-5-inch cards, flip charts, and markers to document participant input.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 67
Vision Statement
PowerPoint presentation. The PowerPoint presentation addressed the following topics.
Vision statements are essential to effective strategic planning processes, because the
vision of an organization clarifies intended direction. Whether applicable to public, private, or
the nonprofit sector, the most effective vision statements include core ideologies, are
aspirational, and encourage an envisioned future. “A vision is a description of the future which
provides a focus for coordinated effort in a company, institution, or association” (Wiley, 1994, p.
532).
What is a vision statement?
● Important declaration about organizational direction
● Powerful, compelling, inspirational, organizational statement
● Comprehensive vision statements describe:
○ Core values
○ Customer services
○ Positive, futuristic outlooks (Bryson, 2011)
Why is a vision statement necessary?
● Provides organizational direction
● Essential to strategic planning
● Defines optimistic organizational aspirations (Bryson, 2011)
In Leading Change, Kotter (2012) asserted organizational vision offers the following:
● Clarifying the general direction for change
● Motivates people to take action
● Coordinates the actions of different people
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 68
The Harvard Business Review (2011) stated that a well-conceived vision consists of two major
components:
● Core ideologies
● Envisioned future
What does a vision describe?
● Future identity
● Optimism, inspiration
● Clear decision-making criteria (Bryson, 2011)
Characteristics of an effective vision:
● Imaginable: Conveys a picture of what the future will look like
● Desirable: Appeals to the long-term interests of employees, customers, stakeholders,
and others who have a stake in the enterprise
● Feasible: Comprises realistic, attainable goals
● Focused: Is clear enough to provide guidance in decision making
● Flexible: Is general enough to allow individual initiative and alternative responses in
light of changing conditions
● Communicable: Is easy to communicate; can be successfully explained within five
minutes (Kotter, 2012, p. 74)
Vision statement review of public safety agencies: PowerPoint presentation. The
committee reviewed the LAFD’s existing vision statement and those of numerous comparable
departments. The following examples illustrate commonalities found in vision statements from
various public safety agencies.
Current LAFD Vision Statement:
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 69
We, the Los Angeles Fire Department, are leaders in providing public safety and
emergency services to the City of Los Angeles as part of a dynamic and organized
regional response team. Our members, both sworn and civilian, treat one another as the
LAFD’s greatest and most valuable asset. The LAFD is grounded in its Core Values and
is committed to creating a diverse workforce reflective of the community it serves with
training, policies and procedures that are free from bias and discrimination. This vision
drives us to be our best for one another, for our Department, and for the people of the
City of Los Angeles.
Los Angeles County Fire Department Vision Statement:
The Los Angeles County Fire Department will be an exemplary organization acclaimed
for our national reputation, our regional strength, and our hometown attentiveness as we
provide fire protection and life safety services.
Berkeley Fire Department Vision Statement:
The Berkeley Fire Department embraces public service and will be recognized as a leader
who responds effectively with well-trained and compassionate professionals.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Vision Statement:
To be a leader in providing fire prevention and protection, emergency response, and
natural resource protection services.
Houston Fire Department Vision Statement:
HFD will be recognized as a premier public service organization, respected and admired
by our peers and the community as the most diverse, innovative, and efficient public
safety provider in the world.
Los Angeles Police Department Vision Statement:
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 70
It is the vision of the Los Angeles Police Department to, as closely as possible, achieve a
City free from crime and public disorder.
Vision statement focus group activity. The following group activity, developed by Dr.
Rick Culley (2014) of USC, was employed to formulate a renewed LAFD vision statement:
● Divide participants into small groups (e.g., three to five people)
● Draft a vision statement for the organization on an index card (individually)
● Discuss each participant’s draft statement in the small group
● Write the general themes of each member’s draft on the group’s flip chart
● Formulate a second draft vision statement (group consensus)
● Present each group’s draft vision statement to all participants (group leader)
● Facilitate discussion on each group’s draft (chair)
● Develop a single vision statement that incorporates key themes from group drafts (p. 24)
Note: Time constraints or other variables may prevent completion of this process;
therefore, the committee may need to use the key words and vision drafts later to finalize
the vision statement, as was the case with the development of the renewed LAFD vision
statement.
Following the presentation, LAFD leaders responded to the committee’s request for input
by providing their subjective perceptions of the existing LAFD vision statement. Collaborative
interaction in three leadership groups composed of three participants each elicited similar
opinions. LAFD leaders expressed that the department’s existing vision statement lacked vision,
was too lengthy, and failed to provide inspirational direction. The participants asserted that the
LAFD vision should convey aspirations to be a national leader, adding that an improved vision
statement should maintain the following:
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 71
● Assert that the LAFD wants to be the best, a national leader
● Express progression as to where the LAFD wants to go
● Reinforce that the LAFD is an all-risk service provider
● Demonstrate effectiveness
Vision statement focus group recommendations. The focus group identified the
following eight key words that participants felt represented the basis for an improved, alternative
vision statement:
● Innovative
● Leader
● Premier
● All Risk
● Public Service
● Community
● Trustworthy
● Adaptive
Mission Statement
PowerPoint presentation. Following input received from the focus group during the
vision statement” portion of the assessment, the chair next focused on the development of a
substantive mission statement, continuing with the PowerPoint presentation to remain organized,
cultivate interest, and most importantly, solicit valued stakeholder input specifically related to
the organizational mission statement. Again, the committee facilitated discourse, group
interaction, and documentation with note cards, flip charts, and markers to document participant
input. The PowerPoint presentation addressed the following topics.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 72
Mission statements are essential to effective strategic planning processes, because the
mission describes organizational purpose that helps guide decisions regarding priorities, actions,
and responsibilities. A mission statement represents a “declaration of organizational purpose”
(Bryson, 2011, p. 138).
What is a mission statement?
● Statement of purpose
● Infers priorities
● Focused on the present (Bryson, 2011)
Why is a mission statement necessary?
● Expresses organizational purpose
● Essential to strategic planning
● Guides activities
● Promotes the organization (Bryson, 2011)
The Harvard Business Review (2011) stated that a mission statement:
● Describes the business of the organization
● Aims to provide focus for management and staff
What does a mission statement describe?
● Core concepts
● Frame of reference
● Services and values (Bryson, 2011)
Mission statement review of public safety agencies: PowerPoint presentation. The
committee reviewed the LAFD’s existing mission statement and those of numerous comparable
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 73
departments. The following represents some examples illustrating commonalities found in the
LAFD mission statement and those of various public safety agencies:
Previous LAFD Mission Statement:
It is the mission of the Los Angeles Fire Department to preserve life and property,
promote public safety and foster economic growth through leadership, management and
actions, as an all risk life safety response provider.
Los Angeles County Fire Department Mission Statement:
The mission of the Los Angeles County Fire Department is to protect lives, the
environment, and property by providing prompt, skillful, and cost-effective fire
protection and life safety services.
Fire Department of the City of New York Mission Statement:
As first responders to fires, public safety and medical emergencies, disasters and terrorist
acts, FDNY protects the lives and property of New York City residents and visitors. The
Department advances public safety through its fire prevention, investigation and
education programs. The timely delivery of these services enables the FDNY to make
significant contributions to the safety of New York City and homeland security efforts.
Los Angeles Police Department Mission Statement:
It is the mission of the Los Angeles Police Department to safeguard the lives and
property of the people we serve, to reduce the incidence and fear of crime, and to enhance
public safety while working with the diverse communities to improve their quality of life.
Our mandate is to do so with honor and integrity, while at all times conducting ourselves
with the highest ethical standards to maintain public confidence.
Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety Mission Statement:
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 74
The mission of the Department of Building and Safety is to protect the lives and safety of
the residents and visitors of the City of Los Angeles and enhance the quality of life,
housing, economic prosperity, and job creation citywide. Through a timely, cooperative,
and transparent process, the DEPARTMENT ADVISES, GUIDES, AND ASSISTS
CUSTOMERS to achieve compliance with the Building, Zoning, Plumbing, Mechanical,
Electrical, Disabled Access, Energy, and Green codes and local and State laws TO
BUILD SAFE, WELL, AND FAST.
Mission statement focus group activity. Consistent with the vision statement activities
developed by Dr. Culley (2014) of USC, the following focus group activities were employed to
formulate a renewed LAFD mission statement:
● Participants remained in previously established groups (e.g., three to five people)
● Request that participants hand out copies of their advance work answers
● Discuss the answers to the questions provided to them
● Ask the participants the following questions:
o Why does the LAFD exist? What is the LAFD’s purpose?
o Who are the LAFD’s customers?
o What do the LAFD’s customers want?
● Write the general themes of each member’s draft on the group’s flip chart
● Draft a mission statement for the organization on an index card (each group)
● Present each group’s draft mission statement to all participants (group leader)
● Facilitate discussion on each group’s draft (chair)
● Formulate a second draft mission statement (group consensus)
● Develop a single mission statement that incorporates key themes from group drafts (p. 30)
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 75
Note: Time constraints or other variables may prevent completion of this process;
therefore, the chair may need to use the key words and mission drafts to later finalize the
mission statement, as was the case with the development of the renewed LAFD mission
statement.
Mission statement focus group recommendations. Following the presentation, LAFD
leaders responded to the chair’s requests for input by providing their subjective perceptions of
the existing LAFD mission statement. Collaborative interaction in three leadership groups
composed of three participants each elicited similar opinions. LAFD leaders expressed concern
specifically related to the existing mission statement, ultimately concluding that the mission
statement should be revised to more accurately communicate organizational purpose, or “reason
for existence.”
The focus group identified six key words participants felt important to the development
of an improved mission statement:
● Prepare
● Protect
● Prevent
● Serve
● Provide
● Support
Core Values Statement
PowerPoint presentation. Following the inputs received from the focus group during the
vision statement and mission statement portions of the assessment, the chair continued with the
PowerPoint presentation to remain organized, increase interest, and most importantly, solicit
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 76
valued stakeholder input specifically related to organizational core values. Again, the committee
facilitated discourse, group interaction, and documentation with note cards, flip charts, and
markers to document participant input. The PowerPoint presentation addressed the following
topics.
Core values statements are essential to effective strategic planning processes, because
they represent fundamental organizational beliefs, which serve as guiding principles that
influence individual priorities and behavior. Whether applicable to public, private, or nonprofit
organizations, core values shape culture, ethical standards, and decision-making processes.
Existing LAFD core ideologies are identified in four documents: its mission, core values,
operating principles, and service statements. The committee examined these value statements,
reviewed applicable literature, and analyzed core values statements of comparable public service
agencies.
What is a core values statement?
● Statement of principled beliefs
● Perspective toward the community served
● Standards of the organization (Culley, 2014)
Why are core values statements necessary?
● Express organizational beliefs
● Essential to strategic planning
● Represent cultural priorities
● Reflect organizational philosophies (Culley, 2014)
What do core values statements describe?
● Principled beliefs
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 77
● Cultural priorities
● Organizational values (Culley, 2014)
Core values statement review of public safety agencies: PowerPoint presentation.
The committee reviewed the existing LAFD core values statement, operating principles, and
service statements and those of numerous comparable departments. The following examples
illustrate commonalities found in the LAFD value statement and those of various public safety
agencies:
Existing LAFD Core Values Statement:
The Core Values that guide our behavior are:
● Service - Above all else, we realize that we are here to meet the needs of the public.
● Professionalism - We conduct ourselves at all times in a manner befitting the oath we
swore to uphold.
● Integrity - We live according to our Code of Conduct that governs our behavior both on
and off the job.
● Respect - We always treat others as they desire to be treated.
● Innovation – We inspire our employees to take risks that improve our organization and
advance our profession.
● Trust - We trust one another to prepare in such a way that puts the safety, effectiveness,
and reputation of the team and the Department first.
LAFD Operating Principles
• Operate through Teamwork
• Operate Ethically and with Integrity
• Operate to Position the Department for the Future
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 78
LAFD Service Statement
To Residents:
We owe the residents of Los Angeles the highest quality of service possible,
characterized by responsiveness, integrity and professionalism. We will continually strive
for quality improvement.
To Fire Department:
We owe the Los Angeles Fire Department our full commitment and dedication. We will
always look beyond the traditional scope of our individual positions to promote
teamwork and organizational effectiveness.
To Each Other:
We owe each other a working environment characterized by trust and respect for the
individual, fostering open and honest communication at all levels.
To Ourselves:
We owe ourselves personal and professional growth. We will seek new knowledge and
greater challenges, and strive to remain at the leading edge of our profession.
Sacramento Fire Department Core Values:
The Core Values of the Sacramento Fire Department demonstrate our professionalism.
These are the words that define our service:
Honor: We are trustworthy, have strong character, and adhere to the highest principles.
Respect: We hold the community we serve, each other, and our profession with highest
regards in a non-judgmental, courteous, and compassionate manner.
Courage: We face difficulty and uncertainty without being diverted from the correct
course of action. We do the right thing, at the right time, for the right reason.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 79
Integrity: We uphold the public trust by committing ourselves to the utmost professional
and ethical behavior.
Devotion to Duty: We are dedicated to carrying out our mission as accountable stewards
of the resources entrusted to us, with prompt response and a readiness to serve.
Los Angeles County Fire Department Core Values:
“Integrity – Teamwork – Caring – Courage – Commitment – Community”
Seattle Fire Department Core Values:
● Integrity - We are honest, trustworthy and accountable. Honor guides our actions.
● Teamwork - We each bring our own skills and experience, yet we recognize that we are
better together. We support and depend on each other to achieve our goals.
● Compassion - Caring is part of our job. We could not do what we do without a deep and
motivating empathy for those we serve.
● Courage - We show fortitude and determination in a crisis.
● Diversity - We respect the different identities, experiences, and perspectives of those that
we work with and the community we serve.
Fresno Fire Department Core Values:
• Accountability - We take personal responsibility for our actions.
• Compassion - We care about and respect people.
• Trust - We believe in each other.
• Innovation - We seek new and creative ways to improve our business.
• Teamwork - We work together to achieve our Vision.
Los Angeles Police Department Core Values:
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 80
The Core Values of the Los Angeles Police Department are intended to guide and inspire
us in all we say and do. Making sure that our values become part of our day-to-day work
life is our mandate, and they help to ensure that our personal and professional behavior
can be a model for all to follow.
• Service to Our Communities
• Reverence for the Law
• Commitment to Leadership
• Integrity in All We Say and Do
• Respect for People
• Quality Through Continuous Improvement
Core values statement focus group activity. Consistent with the vision and mission
statement activities developed by Dr. Culley (2014) of USC, the following focus group activities
were employed to formulate a renewed LAFD core values statement:
● Participants remain in previously established groups (e.g., three to five people)
● Provide each group with a large sheet titled “Values”
● Request participants to write values they feel best represent the organization
● Request participants to write only one value on a sheet
● Chart and share each individual idea with the group
● Cluster value statements collectively in each group
● Present value themes and categories to larger group
● Record each group’s themes on index cards
● Facilitate group discussion until consensus is achieved on desired themes
● Ensure general guidelines for the development of values have been established
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 81
● Modify values at committee level to meet organizational needs
● Develop core values statements that incorporate key themes from group drafts (p. 27)
Note: Time constraints or other variables may prevent completion of this process;
therefore, the chair may need to use the key words and core values drafts to later finalize
the core values statements, as was the case with the development of the renewed LAFD
core values statement.
Core values focus group recommendations. LAFD leaders communicated that the
terms identified in the existing LAFD core values statements were representative of the current
core value ideologies, and therefore recommended the following key words remain in the
renewed core values statement.
● Spirit
● Professionalism
● Integrity
● Respect
● Innovation
● Trust
Initiative 7: Vision Statement Development
The committee recognized the significance of effective vision statements, not only due to
their indispensability in strategic planning processes, but also because of the directional clarity
they offer organizational stakeholders. As stated, compelling vision statements outline core
ideologies, communicate aspirations, and encourage an envisioned future.
Correspondingly, to develop an influential LAFD vision statement, the committee (a)
reviewed applicable literature; (b) disseminated the assessment document; (c) developed a
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 82
PowerPoint presentation; and (d) conducted a focus group assessment and outreach session with
top LAFD command and administrative staff members to determine their perspectives regarding
the LAFD vision statement.
Focus Group Assessment and Outreach Session
The committee conducted a focus group assessment and outreach session with ranking
LAFD officials (i.e., fire chief, two chief deputies, four deputy chiefs, and two fire
commissioners). The assessment document was proactively disseminated to each participant
days prior to the outreach session to encourage preparedness, facilitate substantive input, and
assist with the development of initial drafts for renewed LAFD vision, mission, and core values
statements.
The assessment and outreach session and corresponding PowerPoint presentation
centered on collaborative interaction to identify key words that would provide the foundation for
more contemporarily relevant vision, mission, and core values statements. Additionally, to
improve understanding of strategic planning processes, a cursory overview of environmental
scanning procedures was presented.
The chair presented the PowerPoint to remain organized, cultivate interest, and most
importantly, solicit valued input. Concurrently, the committee facilitated discourse, group
interaction, and documentation with note cards, flip charts, and markers to document participant
input.
Vision Statement Focus Group Activity
The following group activity, developed by Dr. Culley (2014) of USC, was employed to
formulate a renewed LAFD vision statement:
● Divide participants into small groups (e.g., three to five people)
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 83
● Draft a vision statement for the organization on an index card (individually)
● Discuss each participant’s draft statement in the small group
● Write the general themes of each member’s draft on the group’s flip chart
● Formulate a second draft vision statement (group consensus)
● Present each group’s draft vision statement to all participants (group leader)
● Facilitate discussion on each group’s draft (chair)
● Develop a single vision statement that incorporates key themes from group drafts (p. 24)
Note: Time constraints or other variables may prevent completion of this process;
therefore, the chair may need to use the key words and vision drafts to later finalize the
vision statement, as was the case with the development of the renewed LAFD vision
statement.
Vision Statement Focus Group Recommendations
Following the presentation, LAFD leaders responded to the chair’s requests for input by
providing their subjective perceptions of the existing LAFD vision statement. Collaborative
interaction in three leadership groups composed of three participants each elicited similar
opinions. LAFD leaders expressed that the department’s existing vision statement lacked vision,
was too lengthy, and failed to provide inspirational direction. The participants asserted that the
LAFD vision statement should convey aspirations to be a national leader, adding that an
improved vision statement should maintain the following:
● Assert that the LAFD wants to be the best, a national leader
● Express progression as to where the LAFD wants to go
● Reinforce that the LAFD is an all-risk service provider
● Demonstrate effectiveness
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 84
The leaders identified the following eight key words that they felt represented the basis
for an improved LAFD vision statement:
● Innovative
● Leader
● Premier
● All Risk
● Public Service
● Community
● Trustworthy
● Adaptive
Development of a Renewed, Contemporary LAFD Vision Statement
After facilitating engaging, collaborative discourse with the LAFD leadership, the
committee concluded that the existing LAFD vision statement did not meet the criteria for a
compelling vision statement that addressed the aforementioned standards, and therefore should
be revised. The methodology employed to revise the LAFD vision statement incorporated
research from USC, Harvard Business Review, and leading experts in the field (e.g., Bryson,
2011; Collins & Porras, 2011; Kaplan & Norton, 2011; Kotter, 2012; Porter, 2011). Additionally,
the committee reviewed numerous public safety agency vision statements.
Conclusion
An effective vision statement, which is instrumental to organizational success, should
provide clear, compelling, and aspirational direction that not only resonates with our
stakeholders, but also assists the department in its endeavors to transition from obsolete
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 85
paradigms to greater community relevance. “An effective vision of success will embody the
appropriate degree of tension to prompt effective organizational change” (Bryson, 2011, p. 283).
In summary, based on collaborative, inclusive participation from top LAFD staff
members and a review of applicable literature, the committee submitted recommendations that
provided the foundation for a renewed, contemporarily relevant LAFD vision:
“The Los Angeles Fire Department will provide exceptional fire protection and
emergency medical services by being metric driven, technologically sophisticated, and
community focused while reflecting the people we serve.”
Initiative 8: Mission Statement Development
Consistent with the committee’s recognition of the paramount significance of vision
statements is the understanding of the significant value derived from purposeful organizational
mission statements. Similar to vision statements, mission statements are also essential to
effective strategic planning processes; however, mission statements differ in that they are
succinct statements that delineate the purpose, services, and attributes of an organization.
Effective mission statements not only define the reasons for organizational existence, but also
serve to inspire employees, guide activities, and promote the organization (Bryson, 2011; Culley,
2014).
Efforts directed toward the development of a purposeful LAFD mission statement were
employed when the committee (a) reviewed applicable literature; (b) disseminated the
assessment document; (c) developed the PowerPoint presentation; and (d) conducted a focus
group assessment and outreach session with top LAFD command and administrative staff
members to determine their perspectives regarding LAFD’s purpose, or reason for existence.
Mullane (2002) maintained, “Top management must be committed to the process and the values,
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 86
and organization members must be involved to produce a mission that will evoke positive
emotional response” (p. 449).
Focus Group Assessment and Outreach Session
The committee conducted a collaborative assessment and outreach session with ranking
LAFD officials, as previously described. The assessment document was proactively disseminated
to participants days prior to the outreach session to encourage preparedness, facilitate substantive
input, and assist with the development of initial drafts for a renewed LAFD mission statement.
The assessment and outreach session and the corresponding PowerPoint presentation
centered on inclusive interaction to identify key words that would provide the foundation for a
more contemporarily relevant mission statement. Additionally, to improve understanding of
strategic planning processes, a cursory overview of environmental scan procedures was
presented.
Following the inputs received from the focus group during the vision statement portion of
the assessment, the chair continued with the PowerPoint (see Initiative 6) to remain organized,
cultivate interest, and most importantly, solicit valued stakeholder input specifically related to
the LAFD mission statement. The committee facilitated discourse, group interaction, and
documentation with flip charts, index cards, and markers to document participant input.
Mission Statement Focus Group Activity
Consistent with the vision statement activities developed by Dr. Culley (2014) of USC,
the following focus group activities were employed to formulate a renewed LAFD mission
statement:
● Participants remain in previously established groups (e.g., three to five people)
● Request that participants hand out copies of their advance work answers
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 87
● Discuss the answers to the questions provided to them
● Ask the participants the following questions:
o Why does the LAFD exist? What is the LAFD’s purpose?
o Who are the LAFD’s customers?
o What do the LAFD’s customers want?
● Write the general themes of each member’s draft on the group’s flip chart
● Draft a mission statement for the organization on an index card (each group)
● Present each group’s draft mission statement to all participants (group leader)
● Facilitate discussion on each group’s draft (chair)
● Formulate a second draft mission statement (group consensus)
● Develop a single mission statement that incorporates key themes from group drafts (p. 30)
Note: Time constraints or other variables may prevent completion of this process;
therefore, the chair may need to use the key words and mission drafts to later finalize the
mission statement, as was the case with the development of the renewed LAFD mission
statement.
Mission Statement Focus Group Recommendations
Following the presentation, LAFD leaders responded to requests for input by providing
their subjective perceptions of the existing LAFD mission statement. Collaborative interaction in
three leadership groups composed of three participants each elicited similar opinions regarding
the LAFD mission statement. Objective evaluation by the LAFD command staff determined that
the existing mission statement should be revised to more accurately communicate organizational
purpose.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 88
The LAFD command staff members identified six key words they felt important to the
development of an improved LAFD mission statement:
● Prepare
● Protect
● Prevent
● Serve
● Provide
● Support
Development of a Renewed, Contemporary LAFD Mission Statement
After facilitating engaging, collaborative discourse with the LAFD leadership, the
committee concluded that the existing LAFD mission statement did not meet the criteria for a
purposeful mission statement and therefore should be revised. The methodology employed to
revise the LAFD mission statement incorporated research from USC, Harvard Business Review,
and leading experts in the field (e.g., Bryson, 2011; Collins & Porras, 2011; Kaplan & Norton,
2011; Kotter, 2012; Porter, 2011). Additionally, the committee reviewed numerous public safety
agency mission statements.
Research and Literature Review: Mission Statements
Current literature (Bryson, 2011; Collins & Porras, 2011; Green & Medlin, 2003;
Keeling, 2013; Kotter, 2012; Mullane, 2002) suggests that well-conceived mission statements
provide:
● Clear, organizational purpose, or reasons for existence
● Current organizational function, or what the organization does
● A framework or baseline for major planning decisions
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 89
● Brief, achievable, and realistic terms that develop support
● Broad enough to allow flexibility in implementation, but not so broad to lack focus
Conclusion
In summary, and based on collaborative, inclusive participation from top LAFD staff
members and a review of applicable literature, the chair submitted recommendations that
provided the foundation for a renewed, contemporarily relevant LAFD mission:
“The Los Angeles Fire Department preserves life and property, promotes public safety,
and fosters economic growth through a commitment to prevention, preparedness,
response, and recovery as an all-risk life safety response provider.”
Initiative 9: Core Values Statement Development
Consistent with the committee’s recognition of the importance of vision and mission
statements is the understanding of the significant value derived from principled organizational
core values statements. Core values statements are crucial to effective strategic planning
processes, because they represent fundamental organizational beliefs that serve as guiding
principles that influence individual priorities and behavior. Whether applicable to public, private,
or nonprofit organizations, core values shape culture, ethical standards, and decision-making
processes.
Measures to develop a principled LAFD core values statement were employed when the
committee (a) reviewed applicable literature; (b) disseminated the assessment document; (c)
developed the PowerPoint presentation; and (d) conducted a focus group assessment and
outreach session with top LAFD command and administrative staff members to determine their
perspectives regarding the development of contemporary LAFD core values.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 90
LAFD core ideologies were previously identified in four documents: the mission, core
values, operating principles, and service statements. The committee examined these value
statements, reviewed applicable literature, and analyzed core values statements of comparable
public service agencies.
Collaborative Focus Group Assessment and Outreach Session
As previously described, the committee conducted a focus group assessment and outreach
session with ranking LAFD officials. The assessment document was proactively disseminated
prior to the outreach session to encourage preparedness, facilitate substantive input, and assist
with the development of initial drafts for renewed LAFD vision, mission, and core values
statements.
The assessment and outreach session and the corresponding PowerPoint presentation (see
Initiative 6) centered on inclusive interaction to identify key words that would provide the
foundation for a more contemporarily relevant core values statement. Additionally, to improve
understanding of strategic planning processes, a cursory overview of environmental scan
procedures was presented.
Following feedback from the focus group during the vision and mission statement
portion, the chair continued with the PowerPoint to remain organized, cultivate interest, and most
importantly, solicit valued stakeholder input specifically related to the LAFD core values
statements, again while the committee members facilitated discourse, group interaction, and
documentation with index cards, flip charts, and markers.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 91
Core Values Statement Focus Group Activity
Consistent with the vision and mission statement activities developed by Dr. Culley
(2014) of USC, the following focus group activities were employed to formulate a renewed
LAFD core values statement:
● Participants remain in previously established groups (e.g., three to five people)
● Provide each group with a large sheet titled “Values”
● Request participants to write values they feel best represent the organization
● Request participants to write only one value on a sheet
● Chart and share each individual idea with the group
● Cluster value statements collectively in each group
● Present value themes and categories to larger group
● Record each group’s themes on index cards
● Facilitate group discussion until consensus is achieved on desired themes
● Ensure general guidelines for the development of values have been established
● Modify themes at committee level to meet organizational needs
● Develop core values statements that incorporate key themes from group drafts (p. 27)
Note: Time constraints or other variables may prevent completion of this process;
therefore, the committee may need to use the key words and core values drafts to later
finalize the core values statement, as was the case with the development of the LAFD
core values statement.
Core Values Focus Group Recommendations
Following the presentation, LAFD leaders responded to the chair’s requests for input by
providing their subjective perceptions of the existing LAFD core values statement. Collaborative
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 92
interaction in three leadership groups composed of three participants each elicited similar
opinions. LAFD leaders communicated that the terms identified in the existing LAFD core
values statements remained representative of current core value ideologies, and therefore
recommended the following key words continue to be included in the renewed core values
statement.
● Spirit
● Professionalism
● Integrity
● Respect
● Innovation
● Trust
Development of a Renewed, Contemporary LAFD Core Values Statement
Existing LAFD core ideologies are identified in four separate documents: the mission,
core values, operating principles, and service statements. The Committee examined these values
statements, reviewed applicable literature, and analyzed value statements of comparable public
service agencies. The committee concluded that the existing department values were excessively
represented in the four aforementioned areas, and therefore should be condensed into a single
compelling core values statement that more succinctly embody the department’s principal
beliefs.
Research and Literature Review: Core Values Statement
The methodology employed incorporated research from USC, Harvard Business Review,
and leading experts in the field (e.g., Bryson, 2011; Collins & Porras, 2011; Kaplan & Norton,
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 93
2011; Kotter, 2012; Porter, 2011). Additionally, the committee reviewed the core values
statements of numerous public safety agencies.
Well-conceived core values statements clearly define the organizational standards, core
beliefs, and principles that members should both embrace and exude in every day attitude and
behavior. Substantive value statements address the following:
● Organizational priorities
● Organizational culture
● Organizational philosophies
● Ethical standards
● Employee motivation and actions
● Foundation for decision making (Bryson, 2011)
In “Building Your Company’s Vision,” Collins and Porras (2011) asserted that core
ideologies capture organizational priorities, adding:
You do not create or set core ideology. You discover core ideology. You do not deduce it
by looking at the external environment. You understand it by looking inside. Ideology
has to be authentic. You cannot fake it. Discovering core ideology is not an intellectual
exercise. Do not ask, What core values should we hold? Ask instead, What core values do
we truly and passionately hold? You should not confuse values that you think the
organization ought to have—but does not—with authentic core values. To do so would
create cynicism throughout the organization. (“Who’re they trying to kid? We all know
that isn’t a core value around here!”) (pp. 90-91)
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 94
Conclusion
In summary, based on collaborative, inclusive participation from top LAFD staff
members and a review of applicable literature, the committee submitted recommendations that
provided the foundation for a renewed, contemporarily relevant LAFD core values statement:
Service: Dedication to our community
Professionalism: Honoring the firefighter oath
Integrity: Upholding moral and ethical conduct at all times
Respect: Embracing diversity and recognizing individual worth
Innovation: Taking creative risks to adapt and improve
Trust: Reliance on the integrity, strength, and ability of our members
Initiative 10: Environmental Assessment Preparation
Document and PowerPoint Presentation
The chair developed an internal organizational document and PowerPoint presentation
that described strategic planning, including values, processes, and the importance of a
comprehensive environmental assessment. The following topics were addressed:
● What is a strategic plan?
● Why is a strategic plan important?
● What major components or subject areas are involved in strategic planning?
● What is a strategic plan environmental assessment and why is it critical in formulating a
strategic plan?
● What is a SWOT analysis and why is it critical in formulating a strategic plan?
● What is a PESTEL analysis and why is it critical in formulating a strategic plan?
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 95
The chair requested that all internal and external stakeholders who received the
environmental assessment document provide their responses to the following topics and share
this information with the committee in a subsequent meeting:
● Identify LAFD internal strengths
● Identify LAFD internal weaknesses
● Identify LAFD external opportunities
● Identify LAFD external threats
● Identify political factors affecting the LAFD
● Identify economic factors affecting the LAFD
● Identify sociological factors affecting the LAFD
● Identify technological factors affecting the LAFD
● Identify environmental factors affecting the LAFD
● Identify legal concerns affecting the LAFD
Initiative 11: Environmental Assessment
Determination of Internal and External Stakeholders
An effective environmental assessment requires the participation of stakeholders, both
internal and external to the organization, who provide substantive input to determine internal
strengths and weaknesses; external opportunities and threats (SWOT); and the macro level
political, economic, sociological, technological, environmental, and legal factors (PESTEL)
affecting the organization.
Internal stakeholders identified to participate in the LAFD environmental assessment
included the following LAFD individuals: fire chief, chief of staff, employee relations officer,
planning section chief and staff members, community liaison officer, administrative operations
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 96
chief, emergency operations chief, medical director, risk management officer, dispatch
communications officers, professional standards division officers, arson and counter-terrorism
section officials, and union representatives (e.g., United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, Chief
Officer’s Association).
Correspondingly, external stakeholders identified to participate in the LAFD
environmental assessment included representatives from the mayor’s office, City Council
offices, Fire Commission, office of the chief legislative analyst, city administrative office, a
private consulting firm (auditor), and DONE.
Environmental Assessment Document Dissemination
The assessment document was disseminated to designated internal and external
organizational stakeholders in advance of the collaborative environmental assessment meeting,
which was specifically intended to determine the following organizational factors: LAFD
internal strengths and weaknesses; LAFD external opportunities and threats; and macro level
political, economic, sociological, technological, environmental, and legal factors affecting the
LAFD.
Preliminary Outreach Session Planning Meeting
The chair conducted a preliminary environmental assessment meeting with the committee
and LAFD Planning Section personnel at LAFD headquarters to prepare for the environmental
assessment with numerous internal and external stakeholders. Based on LAFD organizational
familiarity and to improve environmental assessment processes prior to and during the
environmental assessment outreach session, the chair implemented a hybrid organizational
structure that included attributes of both the nationally recognized Incident Command System

and the commonly accepted strategic planning environmental scanning processes specific to
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 97
SWOT and PESTEL analyses. This hybrid structure facilitated not only numerous planning,
operational, logistical, and financial considerations, but also provided the format to effectively
provide organization, delegation, and accountability during the environmental assessment.
Environmental Assessment Outreach Session
Stakeholders who participated in the environmental assessment were arranged to enhance
diversity and ensure groupings of five to six participants. More specifically, attendance rosters
and prepositioned tent cards with each individual’s name and agency were employed to facilitate
seating that encouraged participation, collaborative discourse, and diverse perspectives.
A PowerPoint presentation specifically developed to coincide with information
disseminated previously in the environmental assessment document was presented by the chair to
stakeholders during the assessment to cultivate participant interest, increase strategic plan
awareness, and clarify the objectives of the assessment.
Flip charts, easels, markers, and color-coded index cards that coincided with color coding
in the PowerPoint presentation were employed to document information derived from the
extensive SWOT and PESTEL analyses.
Preliminary General Membership Environmental Assessment Planning Meeting
The chair conducted a preliminary meeting with the committee and LAFD Planning
Section personnel to prepare for the environmental assessment with internal and external
stakeholders.
Based on previous successes, LAFD organizational familiarity, and to improve
environmental assessment processes prior to and during the outreach session, the chair
implemented a hybrid organizational structure that included attributes of both the nationally
recognized Incident Command System and the commonly accepted processes specific to SWOT
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 98
and PESTEL analyses. This hybrid structure facilitated not only numerous planning, operational,
logistical, and financial considerations, but also provided the format to effectively provide
organization, delegation, and accountability during the general membership environmental
assessment.
General Membership Environmental Assessment Outreach Session
Of note is the fact that substantive input was derived from four general membership
environmental assessment meetings conducted by the committee, during which all LAFD sworn
members, civilian employees, and labor representatives were invited to share their perspectives
regarding LAFD internal strengths and weaknesses; LAFD external opportunities and threats;
and the macro level political, economic, sociological, technological, environmental, and legal
factors affecting the LAFD.
Stakeholders who participated in the assessment were arranged to ensure groupings of
five to six participants in a setting that encouraged both facilitator interaction and group
collaboration. The previously described PowerPoint was presented by the chair to stakeholders
during the assessment to cultivate participant interest, increase strategic plan awareness, and
clarify the objectives of the assessment.
Flip charts, markers, and color-coded note cards that coincided with color coding in the
PowerPoint presentation were employed to document information derived from the extensive
SWOT and PESTEL analyses.
Labor Organization Environmental Assessment and Outreach Sessions
Labor organization influences in the City of Los Angeles are both prominent and
important; therefore, additional environmental scanning processes were pursued with United
Firefighters of Los Angeles City; LAFD Chief Officers Association; American Federation of
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 99
State, County, and Municipal Employees; Service Employees International Union; and Engineers
and Architects Association, among others.
Similar to the previous environmental assessment outreach sessions, the environmental
assessment PowerPoint was presented by the chair to labor organization representatives to
achieve the same objectives, i.e., to cultivate participant interest, increase strategic plan
understanding, and clarify the objectives of the assessment.
Community-Based Environmental Assessment Outreach Sessions
The City of Los Angeles, which is populated with approximately 4.5 million residents,
maintains 96 distinct neighborhood council offices that represent the voice of the constituents
comprising their respective districts. These 96 neighborhood councils also participate in alliances
and coalitions distinguished by region, issue, and sometimes, as a citywide unit. DONE presides
over all of these neighborhood councils, alliances and coalitions.
Recognizing the ideology that a community-based approach is meaningful to the
successful development of an effective public sector strategic plan, the chair ensured that valued
community input was obtained by attending numerous neighborhood council, neighborhood
alliance, and DONE meetings during several months to solicit input and recommendations to
improve LAFD public services.
The social capital derived from a community-based approach is characterized in the
following statements. “Citizen participation can generate trust, credibility, and commitment
regarding the implementation of policies and can build social capital” (Brody, Godschalk, &
Burby, 2003, p. 246; also see Burby, 2003; Innes, 1996; Innes, Gruber, Nueman, & Thompson,
1994). “Furthermore, organizations and individual participants bring valuable knowledge and
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 100
innovative ideas about their community that can increase the quality of adopted plans” (Brody et
al., 2003, p. 246; also see Forester, 1999; Moore, 1995).
Community- and Internet-Based Environmental Assessment Surveys
Additional community input was pursued through Internet-based platforms such as
SurveyMonkey.com and Nextdoor.com. Simplification of the SWOT and PESTEL analyses
were attempted in this online survey, and participants were asked to respond to following:
● Community expectations: List your five top expectations of the Los Angeles Fire
Department
● Areas of Concern: List your five main areas of concern regarding the Los Angeles Fire
Department
● Positive Comments and Strengths: List five positive comments about or strengths of the
Los Angeles Fire Department
● Additional comments or suggestions
Initiative 12: Environmental Assessment Findings: Key Themes
Subsequent to the completion of LAFD environmental assessment outreach sessions and
related processes, the committee met several times to conduct comprehensive analyses of the
information derived and to develop a spreadsheet that documented findings that emerged from
the SWOT and PESTEL analyses. Key themes, or commonalities, were identified from more
than 3,000 SWOT and PESTEL inputs provided by the participants (i.e., LAFD leaders, internal
and external stakeholders, general membership, labor organizations, neighborhood alliances,
neighborhood councils, and the community). The assessment findings and key themes that
emerged from these processes are delineated in the following table (Table 3.2):
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 101
Table 3.2. Key Themes: Assessment Findings
SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL
● Analyze, evaluate, and improve current emergency services deployment model
● Pursue national standards of coverage accreditation
● Community-based approach
● Improve all-risk service model
● Evaluate alternative EMS strategies to address increasing and changing community
needs (e.g., community paramedicine)
● Improve physical asset and human resources allocation (sworn and civilian)
● Evaluate mutual aid and automatic aid agreements
● Consistently analyze, evaluate, and improve the service delivery model through
performance metrics
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION
● Develop a technology master plan
● Assign a chief information officer to manage technological advances
● Research, analyze, purchase, and integrate relevant state-of-the-art hardware,
software, and technologies
● Coordinate strategic integration and interoperability
● Use technology to create efficiencies
● Develop performance metrics, tracking standards, data collection, analysis, and
reporting (FireStatLA)
● Improve dispatch and communications
● Develop public–private partnerships with technology firms (i.e., Honeywell, Apple,
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 102
Cisco, Lexipol, military)
● Improve department training system analytics
● Training documentation
● California Joint Apprenticeship Committee
● Vocational educational training
● California Incident Command Certification System
● National Wildland Coordinating Group
● Update Fire Prevention Occupancy System and Network Staffing System
● Streamline request for proposal process
REDUCE EXPENDITURES
● Develop revenue enhancement strategies
● Research grant opportunities and develop proposals to increase grant funding
● Pursue budgetary efficiencies through public–private and public–public partnerships
● Provide services and seek reimbursement (e.g., regionalize training, opening
academy to outside agency, public, private, and nonprofit opportunities)
● Prepare for government sequestration, unfunded legal mandates, and revenue
reductions
● Evaluate pension and benefit cost-saving opportunities
● Reduce nonessential expenditures
LEADERSHIP AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
● Embrace and exemplify organizational vision, mission, and core values
● Improve command staff education, training, and competencies
● Encourage participative management processes
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 103
● Improve internal and external communication
● Foster organizational change that maintains pace with community needs
● Develop performance metrics and base decisions on results
● Improve civilian and sworn employee recognition
● Improve personnel evaluation processes
● Ensure promotional decisions are based on merit
● Improve consistency in the application of policy
● Implement succession planning
● Improve stability in specialized assignments
● Enhance relationships with government officials
● Improve labor and management relations
RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
● Identify risk factors and develop evaluation process to address liabilities
● Improve adherence to internal and external policies, regulations, mandates, statutes,
and laws
● Update internal policies and regulations
● Improve employee and labor relations (e.g., letter of agreement, grievances,
mediation, arbitration)
● Reduce liability, litigation, and lawsuits
● Improve workplace environment
● Evaluate disciplinary practices, research best practices, and restructure system
● Reestablish employee wellness program
● Improve employee safety programs
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 104
COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS AND RESILIENCY
● Develop internal and external marketing plan to strengthen public opinion
● Improve public awareness of services
● Capitalize on all media opportunities
● Cultivate partnerships with community and nonprofit organizations
● Increase life safety educational materials and initiatives
● Enhance public outreach and education efforts (e.g., neighborhood councils,
homeowners associations, neighborhood watch groups, community emergency
response teams
● Mirror Los Angeles Police Department senior lead officer program (e.g., unite
LAFD with the communities it serves, replicate Community Police Advisory Board,
ensure representation at community events)
PROFESSIONAL AND DIVERSE WORKFORCE
● Improve career advancement opportunities (e.g., LAFD Learning Institute,
universities, paramedic program)
● Cultivate training partnerships (e.g., regionalize training, National Fire Academy,
California State Fire Marshal’s Office, East LA College)
● Secure grant funds for education and training
● Allocate budget, resources, and time to support education and training
● Collaborate with City Personnel Department
● Improve promotional processes
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
● Identify opportunities and vulnerabilities
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 105
● Develop and sustain strategic partnerships with federal, state, and local government
agencies, private companies, and nonprofits (e., universities, health care providers,
national emergency organizations, professional sport teams, military, Port of Los
Angeles, Los Angeles Police Department, Building and Safety, Department of Water
and Power, Los Angeles International Airport, MySafe:LA, Los Angeles County)
● Strengthen regional coalitions
● Improve interoperability
● Economize to overcome budgetary challenges

Initiative 13: Goal Development
After identifying eight key themes in the data derived from the environmental assessment
processes, the committee developed eight LAFD goals that not only corresponded with the
identified themes, but also facilitated the pursuit of a renewed organizational vision. The
following table (Table 3.3) documents the eight key themes derived from the environmental
assessment and the eight corresponding LAFD organizational goals:
Table 3.3. Key Themes and Organizational Goals
Key Themes Organizational Goals
Service Delivery Model Provide exceptional public safety and emergency services
Technology Integration Implement and capitalize on advanced technologies
Reduce Expenditures Reduce expenditures and pursue cost effective solutions
Leadership and Project
Management
Enhance qualities of leadership, management, and project
delivery
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 106
Risk Management Systems Enhance risk management systems and improve threat
assessments
Community Relationships Strengthen community relationships and enhance
community resilience
Professional and Diverse
Workforce
Recruit, develop, and retain a professional and diverse
workforce
Business Development Support business, improve services, and develop public–
private partnerships

Initiative 14: Goal Implementation Plan Document
The committee developed a goal implementation plan document to assist designated
focus group leaders and the focus groups that they will be assigned to lead with the identification
of specific strategies, tactics, personnel responsibilities, required resources, timelines, and
performance metrics required to accomplish assigned goals.
This process ensured that strategies were specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and
timely. Focus group leaders were instructed to prioritize strategies and tactics in order of
perceived importance.
The following represents an example of the document that was employed to facilitate the
accomplishment of LAFD Strategic Plan Goal 1:
Goal 1: Provide Exceptional Public Safety and Emergency Service
Goal implementation plan foundation (from environmental assessment).
● Analyze, evaluate, and improve current emergency services deployment model
● Incorporate standards of cover community-based approach
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 107
● Improve all-risk model
● Evaluate alternative EMS strategies to address increasing and changing community needs
(e.g., community paramedicine)
● Improve physical asset and human resources allocation (sworn and civilian)
● Evaluate mutual aid and automatic aid agreements
● Consistently analyze, evaluate, and improve service delivery model (performance
metrics)
Goal Implementation Plan Chart
Strategies
(Plans)
Tactics
(Tasks)
Group
Leader
Required
Resources
Timeline
and Dates
Performance
Metrics
Specific plans
to achieve the
goal
Tasks
required to
implement
strategies
Person
responsible
to ensure
completion
Personnel
and resource
needs
Document
milestones
and
completion
dates
Establish
baselines and
criteria for
success
1)
2)
3)

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 108
Initiative 15: Focus Groups and Focus Group Leaders: Goal Pursuit
Focus Groups
The chair collaborated with the LAFD Planning Section to identify specific subject
matter experts (SME) who, by nature of their background, education, and experience, were
capable of performing effectively in collaborative focus groups. Focus group members were then
selected based on their expertise and perceived ability to provide the specific, measurable,
achievable, relevant, and timely strategies and tactics required to pursue each LAFD strategic
plan goal.
Focus Group Leaders
Similar to the focus group members, focus group leaders were also selected based on
their expertise and ability; however, of greater importance was their ability to lead a strategic
plan goal-oriented focus group. Adherence to a manageable span of control occurred by
assigning one focus group leader to each LAFD strategic plan goal and charging leaders with the
responsibility to coordinate their respective focus group activities with the chair. Additionally, to
facilitate greater participation, collaboration, and productivity, leaders had the discretionary
latitude to augment their groups with members whom they believed would contribute to the
development of strategies and tactics that focused on the successful pursuit of their assigned
strategic plan goal.
Initiative 16: Focus Group Leader Direction and Guidance
Efforts to further pursue substantive goal strategies and goal tactics were employed when
the chair guided each focus group leader by communicating expectations and delineating the
following responsibilities:
● Coordinate activities with the chair
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 109
● Identify and assign group members as needed
● Arrange schedules and meetings with group members
● Manage the development of the goal implementation plan
● Ensure group members are aware of common themes associated with each goal
● Ensure group members develop specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timely
strategies and tactics
● Prioritize strategies and tactics in order of perceived importance
● Provide work product to the chair in established timeframes
Formal Direction from Fire Chief to Focus Group Leaders
Submission to fire chief. The chair submitted a letter for the fire chief’s approval and
submission to the designated focus group leader for LAFD Strategic Plan Goal 1: “Develop and
implement an exceptional service delivery model.” An individualized letter was submitted to the
fire chief for approval and submission to each of the focus group leaders responsible for each
LAFD strategic plan goal.
Initiative 17: Goal Strategies, Goal Tactics, and Performance Metrics
The development of effective goal strategies, goal tactics, and related metrics designed to
achieve each strategic plan goal, as outlined in the goal implementation plan, was the primary
charge of each focus group. These efforts were initiated when the chair delegated the
responsibility for each focus group leader to conduct focus group meetings, guide group
interaction, and solicit valued focus group inputs. Additionally, to channel the direction of focus
groups, each focus group leader was informed of the relative findings derived from the
environmental assessment.
The following table (Table 3.4) documents the focus group leaders and members and the
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 110
LAFD goals and assessment findings. The assessment findings were included to provide
foundational background information for each focus group to assist in the development of
substantive goal strategies and goal tactics.
Table 3.4. Focus Groups and Assessment Findings Document

Focus Groups by Theme

Assessment Findings
Theme 1: Service Delivery Model
Focus Group Leader:
● SME (Emergency Operations)
Focus Group Members:
● SME (Emergency Operations)
● SME (Operations West Bureau)
● SME (Operations Central Bureau)
● SME (Medical Director)
● SME (EMS Bureau)
● SME (Battalion 1)
● SME (In-Service Training)
● SME (Hazardous Materials)
Goal 1: Provide exceptional public safety
and emergency service
● Analyze, evaluate, and improve current
emergency services deployment model
● Incorporate standards of cover
o Community-based approach
● Improve all-risk model
● Evaluate alternative EMS strategies to address
increasing and changing community needs
o e.g., community paramedicine, nurse
practitioners
● Improve physical asset and human resources
allocation (sworn and civilian)
● Evaluate mutual aid and automatic aid
agreements
● Consistently analyze, evaluate, and improve
service delivery model (performance metrics)
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 111
Theme 2: Technology Integration
Focus Group Leader:
● SME (Metro Fire Communications)
Focus Group Members:
● SME (Fire Prevention Bureau)
● SME (In-Service Training)
● SME (Management Information
Systems)
● SME (Planning Section)
● SME (Management Information
Systems)
● SME (Budget and Innovation)
● SME (Information Technology)
● SME (LAPD Chief Information
Officer)
Goal 2: Implement and capitalize on advanced
technologies
● Develop technology master plan (chief
information officer to manage technological
advances)
● Research, analyze, purchase, and integrate
relevant state-of-the-art hardware, software,
and technologies
● Coordinate strategic integration and
interoperability
● Use technology to create efficiencies
● Develop performance metrics, tracking
standards, data collection, analysis, reporting
(FireStatLA)
● Improve dispatch and communications
● Build and cultivate partnerships with
technology firms
o e.g., Honeywell, Apple, Cisco, military
● Improve training systems analytics
● Update FPOS and NSS
● Streamline request for proposals process

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 112
Theme 3: Reduce Expenditures
Focus Group Leader:
● SME (Administrative Services)
Focus Group Members:
● SME (Administrative Services)
● SME (City Administrative Office)
● SME (City Administrative Office)
● SME (Budget and Innovation)
● SME (Homeland Security: Grants)
● SME (Administrative Services)
● SME (Office of the City Controller)
Goal 3: Reduce expenditures and pursue cost-
effective solutions
● Develop revenue enhancement strategies
● Research grant opportunities and develop
proposals to increase grant funding
● Pursue budgetary efficiencies through public–
private and public–public partnerships
● Provide services and seek reimbursement
o e.g., regionalize training, opening
academy to outside agency, public,
private, and nonprofit opportunities
● Prepare for government sequestration,
unfunded legal mandates, revenue reductions
● Evaluate pension and benefit cost-saving
opportunities
● Reduce nonessential expenditures

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 113
Theme 4: Leadership and Management
Focus Group Leaders:
● SME (Fire Commissioners)
Focus Group Members:
● SME (Emergency Operations)
● SME (Division 3)
● SME (Battalion 1)
● SME (Leadership Academy)
● SME (FireStatLA)
● SME (Personnel Services)
● SME (Medical Director)
● SME (Professional Standards)
● SME (Office of Public Safety Chair)
Goal 4: Enhance qualities of leadership,
management, and project delivery
● Embrace and exemplify organizational vision,
mission, and core values
● Improve command staff education, training,
and competencies
● Encourage participative management
processes
● Improve internal and external communication
● Foster organizational change that maintains
pace with community needs
● Develop performance metrics and base
decisions on results
● Improve civilian and sworn employee
recognition
● Improve personnel evaluation processes
● Ensure promotional decisions based on merit
● Improve consistency in policy application
● Implement succession planning
● Improve stability in specialized assignments
● Enhance relationships with government
officials
● Improve labor and management relations
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 114
Theme 5: Risk Management
Focus Group Leader:
● SME (Risk Management)
Focus Group Members:
● SME (Professional Standards)
● SME (Risk Management)
● SME (HIPAA)
● SME (Mayor’s Office)
● SME (Quality Assurance)
● SME (Planning)
● SME (Independent Assessor)
● SME (City Attorney)
● SME (Employee Relations Office)
● SME (Professional Standards
Goal 5: Enhance risk management systems
and threat assessments
● Identify risk factors and develop evaluation
process to address liabilities
● Adhere to internal and external policies,
regulations, mandates, statutes, and laws
● Update internal policies and regulations
● Improve employee and labor relations
o e.g., letter of agreement, grievances,
mediation, arbitration
● Reduce liability, litigation, and lawsuits
● Improve workplace environment
● Evaluate disciplinary practices, research best
practices, and restructure disciplinary system
● Reestablish employee wellness program
● Improve employee safety program

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 115
Theme 6: Community Relations and
Community Resiliency
Focus Group Leader:
● SME (Community Liaison Office)
Focus Group Members:
● SME (Chief of Staff)
● SME (Division 2)
● SME (Community Liaison Office)
● SME (Fire Prevention Bureau)
● SME (Community Liaison)
● SME (DONE)
● SME (Los Angeles Police Department
Senior Lead Officer)
● SME (Office of Public Safety Chair)
Goal 6: Enhance community relationships and
strengthen community resiliency
● Develop internal and external marketing plan
to strengthen public opinion
● Improve public awareness of services
● Capitalize on all media opportunities
● Cultivate partnerships with community and
nonprofits
● Increase life safety educational materials and
initiatives
● Enhance public outreach and education efforts
o e.g., neighborhood councils,
neighborhood watch, community groups
● Mirror Los Angeles Police Department senior
lead program
o e.g., unite LAFD with the communities it
serves, ensure representation at
community events

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 116
Theme 7: Professional and Diverse
Workforce
Focus Group Leader:
● SME (In-Service Training)
Focus Group Members:
● SME (In-Service Training)
● SME (Grants)
● SME (Battalion 1)
● SME (Chief of Staff)
● SME (Personnel Services)
Goal 7: Attract, develop, and retain a
professional and diverse workforce
● Improve career advancement opportunities
o e.g., LAFD Learning Institute,
universities, paramedic program
● Cultivate training partnerships
o e.g., regionalize training, National Fire
Academy, California State Fire Marshal’s
Office, East LA College
● Secure grant funds for education and training
● Allocate budget and resources to support
education and training
o e.g., budgeted time off for training
● Improve promotional processes
● Collaborate with Personnel Department

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 117
Theme 8: Business Development and
Public–Private Partners
Focus Group Leader:
● SME (Chief of Staff)
Focus Group Members:
● SME (Fire Prevention Bureau)
● SME (MySafe:LA)
● SME (Emergency Operations)
● SME (Division 3)
● SME (Mayor’s Office)
● SME (FireStatLA)
Goal 8: Support business, improve
development services, and cultivate public–
private partnerships
● Identify opportunities and vulnerabilities
● Develop and sustain strategic partnerships
with federal, state, and local government
agencies, private companies, and nonprofits
o e.g., universities, health care providers,
national emergency organizations, Port of
Los Angeles, Los Angeles Police
Department, Building and Safety,
Department of Water and Power, Los
Angeles International Airport, military,
MySafe:LA, Los Angeles County)
● Strengthen regional coalitions
● Improve interoperability
● Economize to overcome budgetary challenges

Initiative 18: Focus Group and Strategic Plan Committee Collaboration
Following the initial focus group and goal implementation plan endeavors, and to ensure
the timeliness of focus group inputs, the chair personally scheduled, coordinated, and facilitated
meetings with each focus group leader and focus group at a location remote from their offices. A
computer, LCD projector, screen, and projected spreadsheet display were employed to document
focus group inputs related to the goal implementation plan objectives (i.e., strategies, tactics,
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 118
person responsible, and performance metrics). Additionally, committee members projected
spreadsheet entries onto a large screen to increase visualization, focus group interest,
participative input, and substantive recommendations. Interestingly, these measures proved the
most successful in obtaining the desired inputs.
Initiative 19: Topics for Consideration of Inclusion in the Strategic Plan
The committee researched, analyzed, and developed documents that provided the basis for
recommended topics that should be considered by the fire chief, Fire Commission, and elected
officials to be included in the final strategic plan document. These topics are represented in the
following:
● Table of Contents
● Message from Fire Chief
● Community-Focused Strategic Planning
● Executive Summary
● Department History
● Department Overview
● Financial Overview
● Methodology Overview
o Establishing Direction, Purpose, and Principles
o Assessing the Environment
o Shaping the Department
● Vision
● Mission
● Core Values
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 119
● Strategic Goals
o Goal 1
o Goal 2
o Goal 3
o Goal 4
o Goal 5
o Goal 6
o Goal 7
o Goal 8
● Strategic Plan Implementation
● Strategic Plan Management
● Acknowledgements
● Appendices
Initiative 20: Review, Revision, and Finalization of Strategic Plan Document
The submission of a strategic plan draft to specific decision-making stakeholders (e.g.,
LAFD fire chief, LAFD Planning Section, LAFD risk manager, LAFD employee relations
officer, Fire Commission, mayor, chair of the City Council Public Safety Committee, labor
organizations, etc.) provided not only the opportunity to solicit their perspectives regarding the
draft, but also ensured that their valued inputs were obtained. For example, the mayor of Los
Angeles championed a back-to-basics agenda that reinforced the importance of performance
metrics, technological advances, and green initiatives.
Subsequent to review, the committee evaluated recommended revisions from specific
decision-making stakeholders and incorporated these inputs into the final submission of the
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 120
LAFD strategic plan document. One such recommendation included the addition of a strategic
plan goal intended to implement green initiatives that will improve emergency services.
Ultimately, revisions were incorporated into the approved LAFD Strategic Plan.
Initiative 21: Strategic Plan Management
All too often, organizational strategic plans, no matter how robust or comprehensive, fail
due to inattentiveness or lack of effective management. To address these concerns, the
committee recommended that the LAFD administration select a capable, durable strategic plan
management team that featured the attributes necessary to ensure continued adherence to the
prioritized timelines and performance metrics outlined in the strategic plan. The overwhelming
importance of strategically managing the strategic plan cannot be overstated.
Prior to submitting recommendations for effective implementation and management of
the strategic plan, the committee researched strategic plan management processes that aligned
with the aforementioned goal implementation plan and concluded that strategic management
processes require the pursuit of the identified strategic plan goals, goal strategies, and goal
tactics. However, effective plan management also requires vigilant focus on the personnel
responsible for adhering to the specifically delineated timelines, benchmarks, and performance
metrics designed to facilitate the achievement of each strategic plan goal.
Conclusion: LAFD Strategic Plan Model: 21 Strategic Initiatives
The methodology for this public sector organizational change model was constructed
with progressive ideologies that centered on a collaborative approach to strategic planning.
Specifically, the LAFD vision, mission, and core values statements were developed through
inputs derived from ranking LAFD officials. The corresponding organizational goals were
derived from inputs received from community members, community representatives, city
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 121
partners, peer agencies, elected and appointed officials, unionized labor, and LAFD sworn and
civilian members. Additionally, the associated goal strategies, goal tactics, and performance
benchmarks designed to achieve each identified organizational goal were developed through
focus groups composed of goal-related subject matter experts.
Ultimately, critical analysis of the methods, procedures, and emerging data identified
various interrelated actions, that when practically applied, followed a logical order of 21
sequential steps. The 21 strategic initiatives, represented in the following model (Figure 3.1),
proved instrumental in the development of a comprehensive LAFD strategic plan.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 122
Figure 3.1. A Public Sector Organizational Change Model: 21 Strategic Initiatives

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 123
Chapter 4: Conclusions
Discussion
Initial research into factors that would facilitate effective LAFD reform, and more
broadly a model for public sector organizational change, dynamically progressed into qualitative
action research processes that reinforced the importance and effectiveness of collaborative
interaction, group reflection, and team-oriented goal achievement. From the onset of this study,
measures were employed to involve a wide range of internal and external stakeholders, and it
was the diverse stakeholder perspectives that provided the basis of information for the outcome:
a 21 initiative public sector strategic planning model.
Organizational vision, mission, and value statements were developed collaboratively
through insights from top-level LAFD staff, not solely by the fire chief. Thus, organizational
direction, purpose, and beliefs were more accurately contextualized through consensus.
Similarly, substantive LAFD goals were derived from participative discourse that not only
encouraged, but also valued diverse perspectives and ideologies. One differentiating factor
important to this study was the extensive outreach and citizen partnerships pursued with
community groups such as DONE, eight neighborhood alliances, and 96 neighborhood councils.
Research suggests that community involvement and public participation in the
administration of public affairs produces social and political capital for public organizations
(Agócs, 1997; Borins, 2000; Bozeman, 1993; Bryson, 2010; Burke, 2002; Burnes, 2004;
Cunningham & Kempling, 2009; Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003; Facer & Rainey, 1996; Fernandez
& Rainey, 2006; Golembiewski, 1985; Hendry, 1996; Hennessey, 1998; Hooijberg & Choi,
2001; Kotter, 2012; Lewin, 1947; Lines, 2004; Nutt & Backoff, 1993; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992;
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 124
Porter, 2011; Rainey, 1999; Robertson & Seneviratne, 1995; Trice & Beyer, 1993; Van De Ven
& Poole, 1995; Van Wart, 2003).
The social value derived from a community outreach session was evident when an article
was published in CityWatch titled, “Open Letter to LAFD Interim Chief Featherstone: ‘Change
Doesn’t Come From Edicts on High,’” wherein Selesnick (2014) stated “I lauded the Los
Angeles Fire Department for its drastic change in attitude by reaching out to our community
asking LA residents to take a survey to help develop a ‘strategic’ plan and pledging to ‘partner’
with the community” (para. 1).
Although significant literature exists regarding the virtues of democratized governments
and public participation in governance, there seems to be limited research supporting the
effectiveness of participatory governance by local community groups or neighborhood councils
in the City of Los Angeles. Via the city charter, the Los Angeles neighborhood council system
was established “to promote more citizen participation in government and make government
more responsive to local needs” (Los Angeles City Charter, Article IX, Sec. 900). However,
since their inception in 1999, neighborhood councils in Los Angeles appear to have had limited
involvement and participation in public sector organizational change and strategic planning in
city departments.
In addition to the inherent benefits of inclusive collaboration, action research and
emergent design processes also factored prominently into this study. Actionable evaluation and
environmental assessment processes provided the basis for emerging data. Conversely, emerging
data provided the basis for the development of a sequential approach to the LAFD strategic plan
model. In essence, the model was derived through ongoing, dynamic processes that contributed
to the development of a sequential narrative wherein each strategic plan initiative contributed to
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 125
and informed the next. For example, LAFD vision, mission, and value statements contributed to
the development of meaningful organizational goals, which in turn provided the necessary
information to determine effective goal strategies, goal tactics, and performance benchmarks.
The sequential development of this model was not without challenges, and one
unanticipated area of concern that required adjustment manifested when focus group leaders,
who were charged with the responsibility for developing effective strategies and tactics to
achieve strategic plan goals, did not respond within specified time frames. As a compensatory
measure, and to avoid peripheral distractions, the chair scheduled and facilitated meetings with
each focus group leader and focus group at a location remote from their work environments,
during which discourse was encouraged and spreadsheet entries were projected onto a large
screen to increase visualization, focus group interest, and active participation. These measures
expedited the collection of the desired information.
Today’s public sector organizational climate requires administrators who can adeptly
balance competing influences of elected officials, constituents, and labor organizations with the
delivery of optimal public services. Research supports the ideology that cooperative partnerships
between community groups and public administrators further these endeavors, improves
relationships, and increase acceptance of administrative policies. (Armenakis et al., 1993;
Bolton, 2003; Burby, 2003; Collins & Porras, 2011; Cooper, 2012; Culley, 2014; Cunningham &
Kempling, 2009; Facer & Rainey, 1996; Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Lines, 2004;
Oswald et al., 1994).
The 21 strategic initiatives incorporated into this LAFD strategic plan represent a
tangible, directionally prescribed model for public sector organizational change that prioritizes a
community-focused, inclusive, and collaborative approach. This model connects academic
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 126
research with practical application and may provide contemporary public leaders with the ability
to not only narrow divides that may exist among the aforementioned competing influences, but
also bridge gaps in their ability to provide effective, efficient, and optimal public services.
Limitations of the Study
Qualitative research, action research, and emerging design data have inherent limitations
due to the associated philosophical assumptions, subjective interpretations, and numerous
intangible variables that may confound research validity. Qualitative research validity, or any
research validity for that matter, is dependent on accurate findings, because accuracy strengthens
credibility, trustworthiness and authenticity (Creswell, 2014).
Understanding that subjectivity in qualitative research processes is inevitable and that
accuracy may be compromised, tactics were employed to reduce the effect of biases and improve
validity. Creswell (2014) asserted the value of triangulation strategies to improve validity:
Triangulate different data sources of information by examining evidence from the sources
and using it to build a coherent justification for themes. If themes are established based
on converging several sources of data or perspectives from participants, then this process
can be claimed as adding validity to the study. (p. 201)
Triangulation tactics were employed in this study; several sources of information and
participant perspectives were acquired through varying means (i.e., researcher and participant
discourse, internal LAFD administration focus groups, internal and external stakeholder
assessments, department-wide general membership environmental assessments, community
outreach assessments, subject matter expert focus groups, and online surveys). Consequently,
more than 3,000 emerging data inputs contributed to the development of common themes.
Inductively, researchers determined that research saturation occurred wherein additional data
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 127
collection did not reveal new insights. However, regardless of perceived outcomes, research
saturation, or strategies employed to reduce the effect of biases and improve accuracy,
qualitative research is subjective, and therefore, not without limitations.
Consistent with triangulation efforts to reduce biases and improve research validity,
extensive outreach measures were employed to obtain diversified perspectives from a wide range
of participants and stakeholders. A challenge encountered during these endeavors involved the
limited participation of representatives from one particular labor organization. It is important not
to underestimate the value of unionized labor representatives, because their viewpoint not only
represents the voice of their membership, but also might carry political implications. Therefore,
every attempt should be employed to secure this valuable input.
Additionally, not all 96 Los Angeles neighborhood council offices were studied in their
particular field setting. Offsetting the onerous task of studying every neighborhood council
member in the field was the fact that eight neighborhood alliances were interviewed in the field,
and these eight alliances were composed of representatives of the 96 neighborhood council
offices.
Future Research
This study describes research that supports the need for reform in one department of the
City of Los Angeles: the LAFD. On a broader level, former Los Angeles Controller Chick
asserted the absolute need for reform across numerous departments in Los Angeles, stating these
departments had: “No vision. No goals or objectives. No strategic plan” (Barrett & Greene, 2007,
para. 6). It is important to note that the LAFD is a public sector organization that is not entirely
unique in its challenges, and on varying levels, similarities may exist in public sector
organizations extending beyond the LAFD and the City of Los Angeles.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 128
This study acknowledges not only the importance of progressive organizational change
that maintains pace with contemporary public demands, but also the value of maintaining the
organizational agility to continually recalibrate and adjust with regularity to these demands.
These endeavors may be achieved through community-focused, collaborative strategic planning
processes predicated on outreach to stakeholders, community groups, and focus groups.
Although research suggests that public administrators and citizens should seek to enhance
participation in administrative decisions (Armenakis et al., 1993; Aydin & Ceylan, 2009; Burby,
2003; Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003; Golembiewski, 1985; Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Lewin,
1947; Lines, 2004; Robbins & Judge, 2010), it appears there is limited research on effective
collaboration between neighborhood groups and city agencies in Los Angeles. Therefore, future
research that focuses on improved public services and contemporary strategic planning
methodologies that cultivate collaborative partnerships between neighborhood groups and city
agencies could prove beneficial.
Transfer of Innovation and Implementation
The overarching purpose of this study was to develop a pragmatic, progressive, and
contemporarily relevant organizational change model that maintained widespread application in
the public sector. Correspondingly, the 21 strategic initiatives identified in this model were
constructed with broad intent and concerted focus on collaborative relationships, pluralistic
ideologies, and community.
Developed within a public sector context, this model integrates academic research with a
practical approach that offers public leaders an innovative method, or process to engage
stakeholders, garner support, and effectively adjust to the numerous competing influences that
may challenge their ability to provide optimal public services. Therefore, public sector leaders
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 129
committed to maintaining pace with contemporary public service demands might find that
similar implementation of the 21 strategic initiatives identified in this model prove instrumental
in affecting organizational change, in achieving organizational goals, and pursuing
organizational vision.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 130
References
Agócs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction and
repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 917–931. Doi:10.1023/A:1017939404578
Ahrens, M. (2017). Trends and patterns of U.S. fire losses. Retrieved from National Fire
Protection Association website: https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-
and-reports/Fire-statistics/Fires-in-the-US/Overall-fire-problem/Trends-and-patterns-of-
US-fire-losses
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703.
Aydin, B., & Ceylan, A. (2009). The role of organizational culture on effectiveness. Ekonomika
a Management, 3, 33–49.
Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research (11
th
ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thompson.
Barrett, K. & Greene, R. (2007). B&G Interview: Questions for Laura Chick. Governing.
Retrieved from http://www.governing.com/columns/bg-report/Laura-Chick-Los-
Angeles.html
Barzelay, M., (1992). Breaking through bureaucracy: A new vision for managing in government.
Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4
th
ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Berson, Y., Halevy, N., Shamir, B., & Erez, M. (2015). Leading from different psychological
distances: A construal-level perspective on vision communication, goal setting, and
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 131
follower motivation. Leadership Quarterly, 26, 143–155.
Doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.07.011
Bolton, M. (2003). Public sector performance measurement: Delivering greater accountability.
Work Study, 52, 20–24. Doi:10.1108/00438020310458697
Borins, S. (2000). Loose cannons and rule breakers, or enterprising leaders? Some evidence
about innovative public managers. Public Administration Review, 60, 498–507.
Doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00113
Bozeman, B. (1993). Public management: The state of the art. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brody, S.D.; Godschalk, D. R., & Burby, R. J. (2003). Mandating citizen participation in plan
making: Six strategic planning choices. Journal of the American Planning Association,
69(3), 245-264.
Bryson, J. M. (2010). The future of public and nonprofit strategic planning in the United States.
Public Administration Review, 70, 255-267. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable/40984137
Bryson, J. M. (2011). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to
strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Wiley & Sons.
Bryson, J. M., & Roering, W. D. (1988). Initiation of strategic planning by governments. Public
Administration Review, 48, 995–1004. Doi:10.2307/976996
Buckland, Y., & Joshua, H. (1992). Nottingham into the 1990s: Managing change in a district
council. Public Money & Management, 12, 21–25. Doi:10.1080/09540969209387718
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 132
Buelens, M., & Van den Broeck, H. (2007). An analysis of differences in work motivation
between public and private sector organizations. Public Administration Review, 67, 65–
74. Doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00697.x
Burby, R. J. (2003). Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 69, 33-49.
Burke, W. W. (2002). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of
Management Studies, 41(6), 977-1002.
Chakravarthy, B. S., & Lorange, P. (1991). Adapting strategic planning to the changing needs of
a business. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 4(2), 6-18.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chick, L. N. (2008). Follow-up audit of LAFD’s management practices. Retrieved from
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2005/05-1294-S1_rpt_ctrl_5-30-08.pdf
City of Los Angeles Personnel Committee. (1998). Report from the personnel department: 1998
civil service examination for firefighter. Retrieved from
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=9
4-0585-S2
Clarke, T., & Clegg, S. (1999). Changing paradigms in public service management.
Administrative Theory & Praxis, 21, 485–490. doi:10.1080/10841806.1999.11643406
Collins, J. C. & Porras, J. I. (2011). Building your company’s vision. In HBR’s 10 must reads on
strategy (pp. 77-102). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. (Original work
published 1996)
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 133
Cooper, T. L. (2012). The responsible administrator: An approach to ethics for the
administrative role. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Culley, R. (2014). Comprehensive Strategic Planning Course Workbook: Adapted from a client
guideline to strategic planning: PPD 673. Unpublished course workbook.
Cunningham, J. B. & Kempling, J. S. (2009). Implementing change in public sector
organizations. Management Decision, 47(2), 330-344. doi:10.1108/00251740910938948
Davis, G. D., Jr. (2009). Document, implement and monitor your workflow. Journal of Financial
Planning, January, 14–15.
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2003). The new public service: serving, not steering.
Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Drucker, P. F. (1973). Managing the public service institution. Public Interest, 33, 43.
DuBois, M., Hanlon, J., Koch, J., Nyatuga, B., & Kerr, N. (2015). Leadership styles of effective
project managers: Techniques and traits to lead high performance teams. Journal of
Economic Development, Management, I T, Finance and Marketing, 7, 30–46.
Englander, M. (2011). Motion to Los Angeles City Council (Council File No. 11-1702-S1).
Retrieved from http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-1702-S1_mot_12-2-11.pdf
Facer, R. L., II, & Rainey, H. G. (1996). Organizational change: Assessing the public sector
context and learning from studies of the private sector. Society and Economy in Central
and Eastern Europe, 18, 49–75.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 134
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public
sector. Public Administration Review, 66, 168–176. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
6210.2006.00570.x
Fink, A. (2012). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Forester, J. (1999). Challenges of mediation and deliberation in the design professions: Practice
stories from Israel and Norway. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 16(2),
116-132.
Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Garcetti, E. (2012). Motion to Los Angeles City Council (Council File No. 12-0395-S2).
Retrieved from http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2012/12-0395-S2_MOT_03-20-12.pdf
Garcetti, E., & Englander, M. (2012). Motion to Los Angeles City Council (Council File No. 12-
0395-86). Retrieved from http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2012/12-0395-S6_CA_12-
04-12.pdf
Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Golembiewski, R. T. (1985). Humanizing public organizations: Perspectives on doing better-
than-average when average ain’t at all bad. Mt. Airy, MD: Lomond.
Green, K. W., Jr., & Medlin, B. (2003). The strategic planning process: The link between
mission statement and organizational performance. Academy of Strategic Management
Journal, 2, 23–32.
Greenwald, H. P. (2008). Organizations: Management without control. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 135
Harvard Business Essentials Series. (2005). SWOT analysis I: Looking outside for threats and
opportunities. Excerpted from Strategy: Create and implement the best strategy for your
business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Harvard Business Essentials Series. (2005). SWOT analysis II: Looking inside for strengths and
weaknesses. Excerpted from Strategy: Create and implement the best strategy for your
business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Harvard Business Review. (2011). HBR’s 10 must reads on strategy. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Review.
Hennessey, J. T., Jr. (1998). “Reinventing” government: Does leadership make the difference?
Public Administration Review, 58, 522–532. doi:10.2307/977579
Herold, D. M. Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S. D., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational
leadership and change leadership on employees’ commitment to a change: A multi-Level
study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 346-357.
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2010). Emperors with clothes on: The role of self-awareness in
developing effective change leadership. Journal of Change Management, 10, 369–385.
doi:10.1080/14697017.2010.516483
Hooijberg, R., & Choi, J. (2001). The impact of organizational characteristics on leadership
effectiveness models: An examination of leadership in a private and a public sector
organization. Administration & Society, 33, 403–431. doi:10.1177/0095399701334002
Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive
planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62, 460-472.
Innes, J. E., Gruber, J., Nueman, M., & Thompson, R. (1994). Coordinating growth and
environmental management through consensus building. CPS Brief, 6(4), 1-8.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 136
Jurisch, M. C., Ikas, C., Wolf, P., & Krcmar, H. (2013). Key differences of private and public
sector business process change. e-Service Journal, 9, 3–27. doi:10.2979/eservicej.9.1.3
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2011). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management
system. In HBR’s 10 must reads on strategy (pp. 167-190). Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Review. (Original work published 1996)
Kellis, D. S., & Ran, B. (2015). Effective leadership in managing NPM-based change in the
public sector. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28, 614–626.
doi:10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0229
Kezar, A. J. (2001) Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century:
Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4).
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business
Review 86(7,8), 130-139.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lager, J. M. (2010). Governments demand compliance, ethics demand leadership. Journal of
Public Affairs, 10(3), 216-224.
Lauenstein, M.C. (1986). The failure of strategic planning. Journal of Business Strategy, 6(4),
75-80.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science;
social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(5), 5-41.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 137
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (D. Cartwright,
Ed). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational
commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4, 193–215.
doi:10.1080/1469701042000221696
Los Angeles City Charter. Article IX, Section 900. Retrieved from http://empowerla.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/12/LACityCharter-Article-IX.pdf
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new
methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, J. P. (1997). Fire and emergency medical resource enroute times. Unpublished internal
document, Los Angeles Fire Department.
Miller, S. (2013). Review of the fire department’s disciplinary process. Retrieved from
http://oialafd.lacity.org/stellent/groups/BoardCommissions/%40OIA_Contributor/docum
ents/Contributor_Web_Content/LACITYP_026798.pdf
Moore, C. N. (1995). Participation tools for better land-use planning: Techniques and case
studies. Sacramento, CA: Local Government Commission.
Mullane, J. V. (2002). The mission statement is a strategic tool: When used properly.
Management Decision, 40, 448–455. doi:10.1108/00251740210430461
Nutt, P. C., & Backoff, R. W. (1993). Transforming public organizations with strategic
management and strategic leadership. Journal of Management, 19(2), 299-348.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 138
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is
transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Oswald, S. L., Mossholder, K. W., & Harris, S. G. (1994). Vision salience and strategic
involvement: Implications for psychological attachment to organization and job. Strategic
Management Journal, 15(6), 477-489.
PA Consulting. (2014). Fire department deployment of resources study. Retrieved from
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2012/12-0600-S28_misc_03-03-14.pdf
Paschall, L. (2013). Implementing a strategic plan. Dental Assistant, 82, 14–16.
Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G., (1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory:
Critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 182-201.
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational change
and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal,
44(4), 697-713.
Porter, M. E. (2011). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. In HBR’s 10 must reads on
strategy (pp. 1-37). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review. (Original work published
1996)
Rainey, H. G. (1999). Using comparisons of public and private organizations to assess
innovative attitudes among members of organizations. Public Productivity &
Management Review, 23, 130–149. doi:10.2307/3380775
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2010). Essentials of organizational behavior (11th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MODEL 139
Robertson, P. J., & Seneviratne, S. J. (1995). Outcomes of planned organizational change in the
public sector: A meta-analytic comparison to the private sector. Public Administration
Review, 55, 547–558. doi:10.2307/3110346
Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting. (2006). Review of the Los Angeles Fire Department management
practices. Retrieved from https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/834295/2006-
audit-of-lafd-management-practices.pdf
Smith, D. (1978). Dennis Smith's history of firefighting in America: 300 years of courage. New
York, NY: Dial Press.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Van De Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510-540. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0335/f47eb46c5a936da304b2d44e9328ee392442.pdf
Van Wart, M. (2003). Public-sector leadership theory: An assessment. Public Administration
Review, 63, 214–228. doi:10.1111/1540-6210.00281
Vogt, W. P., & Johnson, R. B. (2011). Dictionary of statistics & methodology: A nontechnical
guide for the social sciences (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wiley, A. L. (1994). A target that beckons: A man on the moon. Technical Communication, 41,
532–536.
Wilson, J. W., & Eilertsen, S. (2010). How did strategic planning help during the economic
crisis? Strategy & Leadership, 38, 5–14. doi:10.1108/10878571011029000

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was the development of an inclusive, participatory model for sustainable organizational change that maintained practical application for the public sector in general. The investigation focused on collaborative interaction, group reflection, and inclusive outreach with a wide range of stakeholders, including focused outreach and partnerships with 96 Los Angeles neighborhood councils to create a global model for meaningful organizational improvement. The methodological approach selected for this process was underpinned by progressive ideologies that abandoned vertically hierarchical, autocratic management tenets and adapted fieldwork strategies, focus group interviews for qualitative data gathering, and online survey research to determine public opinion. ❧ Shared communications and a participative strategic planning approach provided not only the foundation for structural change and cooperative generation of substantive LAFD organizational vision, mission, and value statements, but also the corresponding goals, strategies, tactics, and benchmarks necessary to pursue the renewed organizational vision. Ultimately, the model was derived from emerging, dynamic processes that contributed to the development of a sequential narrative wherein each strategic plan initiative contributed to and informed the next. The 21 strategic initiatives incorporated in the LAFD strategic plan represent a prescriptive model for public sector organizational change that prioritizes collaboration, inclusiveness, and community. ❧ This public sector organizational change model connects academic research with practical application and may provide contemporary public leaders with a method to bridge gaps that may exist between influences (e.g., political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legislative) that may affect their ability to provide effective, efficient, and optimal public services. Therefore, similar application of the processes identified in this model may have broader implications, and its implementation in the public sector may prove useful in affecting relevant change in organizations committed to maintaining pace with contemporary public service demands.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Elements of a successful multi-sectoral collaborative from a local government perspective: a framework for collaborative governance – dimensions shared by award winning multi-sectoral partnerships

PDF

Resilient and equitable urbanism by design: insights from the collaborative process to reimagine the SF Bay Area

PDF

Looking to the stars: perceptions of celebrity influence in the nonprofit sector

PDF

Intradepartmental collaboration in the public organizations: implications to practice in an era of resource scarcity and economic uncertainty

PDF

The role of leadership and collaboration as a catalyst for regional economic development: a grounded theory study

PDF

Collaborating to provide microfinance to caregivers of orphans and vulnerable children in Ethiopia

PDF

Education based incarceration: educate to change the organizational culture of corrections in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

PDF

A strategic talent management retention model: an effective way to shape the United States Space Force

PDF

Critical factors in evaluating compliance to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540: developing a methodology for compliance evaluation

PDF

A stakeholder approach to reimagining private departments of public safety: the implementation of a community advisory board recommendation report

PDF

How does collaborative governance work? The experience of collaborative community-building practices in Korea

PDF

The future of work: defining a healthy ecosystem that closes skills-gaps

PDF

Governance and urban design: Omaha by design

PDF

Using innovative field model and competency-based student learning outcomes to level the playing field in social work distance learning education

PDF

“A thread throughout”: the KMO influences on implementing DEI strategic plans in state and municipal governments

PDF

The Wenchuan earthquake recovery: civil society, institutions, and planning

PDF

Collaboration: is it worth it? The Magnolia Community Initiative from the perspective of initiative partner participants

PDF

Embedding sustainability: a change management guide for ports

PDF

Life without nuclear power: a nuclear plant retirement formulation model and guide based on economics: San Onofre nuclear generating station case: economic impacts and reliability considerations ...

PDF

Information sharing, deliberation, and collective decision-making: A computational model of collaborative governance

Asset Metadata

Creator Drake, John L., II (author)

Core Title A public sector organizational change model: prioritizing a community-focused, inclusive, and collaborative approach to strategic planning

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 03/05/2018

Defense Date 01/16/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag collaborative,community-focused,focus groups,inclusive,neighborhood councils, Los Angeles Fire Department, competing influences,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change,participative,public sector,strategic planning

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Natoli, Deborah J. (committee chair), Cooper, Terry L. (committee member), Zerunyan, Frank V. (committee member)

Creator Email jddrake02@gmail.com,johnldra@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-481590

Unique identifier UC11266613

Identifier etd-DrakeJohnL-6079.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-481590 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DrakeJohnL-6079.pdf

Dmrecord 481590

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Drake, John L., II

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA