Reform: (verb) “to make better by removal of faults.”

In public safety, “reform” is rarely a neutral term. Even when a change is reasonable, evidence-based, and operationally necessary, the label reform often conveys a stronger message: public disappointment, political scrutiny, media pressure, or an implied judgment that the organization has been doing things “wrong.” This framing matters because leaders do not see reform as an abstract management idea. They view it as a reputational and operational threat that must be managed simultaneously across multiple audiences: elected officials, accreditation assessors, unions, line personnel, community members, mutual-aid partners, and courts. In that environment, fear is not irrational. It is often an adaptive response to real danger.

A core reason reform feels threatening is that it challenges legitimacy. Suchman (1995) describes legitimacy as a generalized perception that an entity’s actions “are desirable, proper, or appropriate” (p. 572). For public safety executives, legitimacy is not just a philosophical issue; it forms the foundation for authority, discretion, budget stability, recruitment, political support, and community cooperation. When reform is announced, especially after a critical incident, lawsuit, assessment, or scandal, leaders may perceive an unspoken accusation: your organization is no longer trusted to govern itself. That perception can lead to defensiveness, delays, or symbolic compliance, not because leaders reject improvement, but because they want to protect the organization’s reputation and continuity.

Reform also risks challenging organizational identity. Public safety fields tend to build strong professional cultures centered on competence, sacrifice, and mission clarity. The best leaders understand that culture can serve as a protective shield. However, this same strength can make reform seem like an attack on “who we are.” Institutional theory explains why: organizations function within expectations shaped by the state, professional organizations, and peer agencies, and face pressure to conform to maintain legitimacy (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). When reform is seen as external pressure (e.g., the legislature made us, the court ordered it, the public demands it), leaders often expect morale to drop and view the change as a threat to identity rather than an opportunity to improve. In policing, for instance, research has long noted organizational resistance to innovation and change, especially when change is perceived as imposed or misaligned with internal norms (Lingamneni, 1979). Similar dynamics are evident across fire, EMS, corrections, communications, and emergency management when reforms are seen as top-down mandates rather than organically driven improvements.

Another reason reform is intimidating is the uncertainty and operational risk it brings. Public safety involves high-stakes decisions made quickly. Many public safety agencies resemble high-reliability settings, where failure can be disastrous, encouraging vigilance and a reluctance to simplify or assume that new systems will function perfectly in practice (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). Reform interrupts routines that people depend on for safety and performance: response procedures, staffing, use-of-force policies, dispatch protocols, evidence management, detention operations, training programs, and mutual-aid connections. Leaders might reasonably worry that an untested “improvement” could introduce new failures and that they will be held responsible if short-term outcomes decline.

Reform also activates human resistance to change, which is not simply stubbornness. Research consistently shows that resistance has cognitive (beliefs), affective (feelings), and behavioral (actions) components, and these reactions can be intensified by ambiguity, fairness concerns, and distrust in the change process (Oreg, 2006; Rehman et al., 2021). Leaders anticipate that reforms will compete with existing workload, generate union conflict, or create “initiative fatigue.” They also know that well-designed reforms can fail when organizations do not build a shared understanding, confidence, and commitment to the change (Rafferty et al., 2013).

Finally, reform worries leaders because public-sector change is uniquely political. Unlike private organizations, which can quietly change priorities, public safety agencies often implement reforms under visible oversight and contested narratives. Fernandez and Rainey (2006) emphasize that successful public-sector change requires clear goals, leadership commitment, stakeholder support, and alignment between systems and culture. Leaders understand that reform is not only about what changes, but about who gets to define success and who benefits. These questions can quickly become political.

Where the Accreditation Manager Changes the Trajectory

This is where the accreditation manager becomes more than a technical specialist. At their best, accreditation managers operate as institutional interpreters and risk translators, helping executives convert pressure into credible, defensible improvement.

First, accreditation managers help leaders reframe reform from accusation to stewardship. When reform is treated as a public shaming ritual, leaders naturally defend. When it is framed as disciplined stewardship (an evidence-based effort to reduce preventable harm, strengthen consistency, and protect public trust), it becomes easier to lead. Accreditation provides a language of standards, proof, documentation, and continuous improvement that can shift conversations away from blame and toward change.

Second, they offer sensemaking and legitimacy protection. Because legitimacy is delicate, leaders need a clear story that explains why this change is necessary and how the organization will implement it responsibly. Accreditation managers can base this story on recognized standards, peer benchmarks, and auditable processes. This shows that the agency is not improvising but following a credible improvement path (Suchman, 1995; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

Third, accreditation managers foster change readiness throughout the organization. Readiness is not just hype; it is the practical foundation that helps prevent failure. It involves clarifying the “what” and “why,” addressing perceived costs, ensuring training and resources are in place, and establishing feedback loops (Rafferty et al., 2013). During periods of significant reform, accreditation managers can also protect leaders from overreach by breaking implementation into manageable phases, highlighting early successes, and identifying obstacles before they escalate into scandals (Kotter, 1995).

Fourth, they interpret reform as enhancing operational reliability. Environments that require high reliability avoid change because failure is expensive. Accreditation managers can lower that fear by treating reforms like operational upgrades: testing, validating, documenting, training, and auditing. This approach makes sure that new practices are not just effective on paper but also under pressure (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015).

Finally, accreditation managers can assist leaders in maintaining internal legitimacy—the trust of their own people. Reform efforts often fail when staff perceive leadership as inconsistent or unfair. Procedural justice research highlights that perceived fairness and trustworthy decision-making influence legitimacy judgments in authority relationships (Tyler, 2015). Accreditation managers can help executives communicate reforms openly, document reasons, standardize expectations, and demonstrate consistent follow- through. These actions help reduce cynicism and foster greater buy-in.

Reform is intimidating in public safety because it signals a threat: a threat to legitimacy, identity, control, and operational stability. However, it does not have to remain intimidating. With an accreditation manager serving as a strategic guide, leaders can shift from reactive defense to deliberate improvement. In that shift, reform ceases to be a fearful word. It becomes what Webster’s definition suggests: making the organization better by carefully and credibly addressing faults in a way that builds trust.

References

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168–176.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67.

Lingamneni, J. R. (1979). Resistance to change in police organizations—The diffusion paradigm. Criminal Justice Review, 4(2), 17–26.

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Reform. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved December 24, 2025, from Merriam-Webster.com.

Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73–101.

Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2013). Change readiness: A multilevel review. Journal of Management, 39(1), 110–135.

Rehman, N., Hasaaan, S. H., & Ahmed, F. (2021). The psychology of resistance to change: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 647.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

Tyler, T. R. (2015). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective law enforcement. National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). Managing the unexpected: Sustained performance in a complex world (3rd ed.). Wiley.