Overview
This page describes “how” some changes might be approached in the city government of Sallisaw – or other cities. My book’s concepts apply to changes within government – not just business. I would draw from this concepts as Sallisaw’s City Manager.
Four types of change
The four types of change reviewed here are imperative, compliance, suspect, and provocative change. Download or view my 2005 book Provocative Business Change for detailed descriptions.
Imperative (1) and compliance (2) changes do not require a business case.
(1) Predict > Prevent > Prepare > Perform > Post Action
(2) Interpret > Communicate > Design > Train > Adapt
Suspect (3) and provocative (4) changes DO require a business case.
(3) Business Case > Shut down or continue with #4
(4) Business Case > Define > Design > Develop > Deliver
Imperative Change
Imperative change involves pre-emptive planning and urgent action. Ideally, thoughtful pre-emptive planning and preparedness lessen the impact of a crisis or other unexpected circumstances.
Predict > Prevent > Prepare > Perform > Post Action
In a perfect world, crises would be rare. Even so, a wide variety of high-impact and urgent needs do arise. These temporarily consume resources that are otherwise allocated elsewhere.
Even with pre-emptive plans, these changes require strong leadership, exceptional communication, internal organizational alignment, and the possible enlistment of external resources. Presently, I am uncertain to what degree previous city managers have documented for various scenarios. As Sallisaw’s City Manager I would need support from employees and other subject manager experts to better understand our preparedness.
-
- Natural disasters
- Contamination
- Public health
- Public safety
- Data breach
- Criminality
- Outages
These reactionary changes should emphasize prediction, prevention, and preparedness.
Compliance Change
Compliance change is mandatory or required by a law, regulation, ordinance, or code. Compliance changes often stir up resistance and can be caustic if not managed well. Considerations for compliance efforts often include mandatory timelines, changes in approach and processes, and sometimes a permanent reallocation of resources.
These changes likely involve and benefit from legal and practical interpretations early on. If the interpretation of this type of change is wrong, the next steps will veer from what is needed.
These changes warrant caution when implementing different processes without first considering stakeholder impacts, the need for employee training, and thoughtful communication.
Interpret > Communicate > Process Design > Train > Adapt Processes
Compliance change can be recognized in business without a clearly defined business benefit. In government, compliance changes most commonly produce benefits for portions of the citizenry but not neccessarily all citizens. Examples include:
-
- New federal law
- New regulatory
- New state law
- New local ordindance
These required changes should emphasize communication, training, and process adaptation.
Suspect Change
A business case must precede proposed changes (other than imperative or compliance change). Requiring a business case will identify a suspect change and result in shutting down or deferring the effort before investing resources toward it.
Suspect change tends to be discretionary and can be characterized as not having well defined citizenry benefit. In an ideal situation, these changes would not be funded until such benefits are defined and compared to alternative uses of funds and resources. 
Without a clarified and defensible benefit, suspect changes should be shut down or deferred early in the process. While commercial organizations have processes in-place to identify suspect projects, government enterprises are at a greater risk for allowing suspect change (or projects) to slip through the cracks.
I do not yet know if any initiatives have previously fit this category. I hope not. Going forward I would put into place safeguards against pursuing these imprudent efforts. As Sallisaw’s City Manager, I would need to be attentive to these risks.
Transparency in sponsorship, accountability, and rationality is not just important; it’s crucial. These elements play a significant role in minimizing questionable project spending. The front end and back end of the change process have elevated importance. Calculating cost/benefit and comparing it to other ways to spend the budget might help shape a questionable initiative into improved benefits at lower costs.
The selection process of outside vendors is also crucial. Sponsors must be separated from selection criteria and vendor appeals. In an ideal world, this would be unnecessary. But in reality, there are temptations to bias a selection toward a favored vendor in several ways.
Signs of a questionable (suspect) change include:
-
- Unclear community benefit
- Uses non-objective criteria
- Muddied sponsorship
- Unclear accountability
- Poor project management discipline
- Resistance to status reporting
- Inadequate notice to potential vendors
- Deflection or misdirection
- Encumbering important efforts with earmarks
These questionable changes and projects should emphasize transparency, cost/benefit comparisons, and vendor selection.
Provocative Change
Provocative change represents the most common operational change in most organizations today, including the government. These changes account for a significant portion of budgeted project expenses in a fiscal year. They are sometimes broad and sweeping, but they are often contained within one or two functions of the organization.
Too frequently, a change of this type tries to communicate itself as an organizational imperative—one that has a clearly defined benefit and is also required for “survival.” These changes are provocative for several reasons—most significantly, often there are winners and losers–or the perception of such. Even when everyone wins, some win more than others.
While these changes may not be imperative, they are sufficiently justifiable with clear sponsorship and a potential for significant benefits. As Sallisaw’s City Manager, it would be important to remember that a provocative change, while not a required set of actions, could still yield substantial advantages. The time, effort, and resources could alternatively be used toward an alternative project.
Conclusion
The page describes different types of changes that can occur within a city government or other governmental organizations. It outlines four main types of change: imperative, compliance, suspect, and provocative change.
Imperative change involves urgent planning and action, such as in response to natural disasters or public safety issues.
Compliance change is mandatory and required by law, often involving changes in processes and resource allocation.
Suspect change is discretionary and should only be pursued if its benefits are well-defined and compared to alternative uses of funds and resources.0
Provocative change involves making deliberate and bold changes that challenge the status quo and traditional practices within government organizations.
The text emphasizes the importance of careful planning, communication, and consideration of stakeholder impacts for successful implementation of these changes.
<< 100-Day Plan | Q & A >>
(c) John A. Honeycutt, 2024 All rights reserved.
John Honeycutt, Sallisaw City Manager Applicant.