Structural Vs. Behavioral Change: the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978

• Date: 01 March 1982
• Published date: 01 March 1982
• Author: Carl J. Bellone
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X8200200206
• Subject Matter: Articles

STRUCTURAL VS. BEHAVIORAL CHANGE:
THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1978
Carl J. Bellone
California State University, Hayward
Abstract
The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) is an attempt to change the way people behave in person-
nel management. This article examines four major assumptions about what was wrong with pre-
reform personnel management that lead to the CSRA, and the structural changes initiated by the
Act to correct these deficiences. It concludes that without a behaviorally-oriented change strategy,
these structural reforms are not likely to lead to lasting behavioral change. This failure will result
in the law falling short of its goals.
Introduction
The ultimate aim of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) is to change the
way people behave in the conduct of personnel management.’ This analysis will
examine four major assumptions of the CSRA and speculate on the likelihood
of the mandated changes actually leading to substantive behavioral change. This
will provide a preliminary answer to the question: Is the CSRA likely to meet
its goals? Crucial to our examination of this question is a discussion of struc-
tural and behavioral change strategies.
°
While there were many factors that led to this century’s reform of the federal
civil service, a reading of pre-reform statements, especially those by Alan Camp-
bell, the former Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and
President Carter, reveal four major assumptions that underlay the reform move-
ment (Campbell, 1978). These assumptions were: (1) federal managers lacked
sufficient managerial flexibility to deal effectively with personnel issues; (2) poor
performers were difficult or impossible to discipline; (3) the rewards for good
performance were insufficient; and (4) the productivity of the federal service
needed to be improved. These were the conditions the CSRA set out to change.
Each in turn will be examined in a subsequent section.
Structural and Behavioral Change Strategies
Before examination of these four assumptions, it is important to make a
distinction between two types of change strategies. Changes in law and regula-
tions are structural changes. A structural reform is one where relationships be-
tween variables such as authority and responsibility or sets of rules are
59

---

changed. It assumes that once the environment of the individual has been altered,
his or her behavior will change as a response to the new environmental condi-
tions (Harvey and Brown, 1976: 179). The CSRA follows the same assump-
tions that changes in rules, regulations, and procedures will improve the effec-
tiveness of personnel management. Such changes include new authorities for
line personnel managers, streamlined procedures for adverse actions, a new merit
pay system based on performance, and a new performance appraisal system.
It is relatively easy to evaluate the realization of these type of changes. One
merely compares the stated environmental conditions with the conditions found
in practice. Therefore, if merit pay was demanded for all GS 13-15 managers
and was established according to the law, then the effort can be viewed suc-
cessfully. As stated earlier, however, the purpose of structural change is two-
fold. The aim of the environmental change is to affect the behavior of people.
Behavioral change, while harder to evaluate, is a necessary part of any struc-
tural change effort. Legislation, however, rarely if ever directly addresses
behavioral change strategies.
Structural change does not always lead to behavioral change (French and Bell,
1973). Overall environmental conditions, in our specific case personnel rules
and regulations, are one set of variables among many unpredictable elements
that account for human behavior. Other variables, such as bureaucratic culture,
personality, interpersonnel relationships, individual perceptions, vested interests,
and organizational socialization, also influence behavior. Behavioral change
strategies often focus on these latter aspects first. As Donald Harvey and Donald
Brown (1976: 182) have pointed out, behavioral change is directed at ~‘... at-
two
alter the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of organization members
and assume(s) that structural and operational improvements will f®11®w.’ ~
The danger for the CSRA is that structural changes will not lead to the desired
behavioral changes. There are two reasons for this. First, structural change does
not automatically result in behavioral change, as noted above. Second, the CSRA
lacks an implementing behavioral change strategy. As of today, the implemen-
tation experience of the CSRA seems to be more paperwork compliance than
bringing about any substantive behavioral change (Rosen, 1981). People resist
change for a variety of reasons, and these resisting forces must be overcome
for behavioral change to occur. Harvey and Brown (1976: 162-164) list four
reasons why people resist change: (1) fear of the unknown; (2) lack of potential
benefits; (3) loss of status and security; and (4) disruption of routine.
Implementation of the CSRA has inadequately addressed these areas. First,
the dissemination of information about the Act was left up to the agencies. While
some may have done a good...