Browse

Journals By Subject

Life Sciences, Agriculture & Food
Chemistry
Medicine & Health
Materials Science
Mathematics & Physics
Electrical & Computer Science
Earth, Energy & Environment
Architecture & Civil Engineering
Education
Economics & Management
Humanities & Social Sciences
Multidisciplinary

Books

Publish Conference Abstract Books
Upcoming Conference Abstract Books
Published Conference Abstract Books
Publish Your Books
Upcoming Books
Published Books

Proceedings

Events

Events
Five Types of Conference Publications

Join

Join as Editorial Board Member
Become a Reviewer

Information

For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Conference Organizers
For Librarians
Article Processing Charges
Special Issue Guidelines
Editorial Process
Manuscript Transfers
Peer Review at SciencePG
Open Access
Copyright and License
Ethical Guidelines
Submit an Article
Research Article | | Peer-Reviewed

Managing Change in Cities: Transition Kampala Capital City to Kampala Capital City Authority

David Lwanga*,  Stella Koyohairwe,  Isaih Eitu
Published in Journal of Public Policy and Administration (Volume 9, Issue 4)
Received: 6 January 2025     Accepted: 26 January 2025     Published: 14 November 2025
Views:       Downloads:
Download PDF
Abstract

Kampala city was formally governed as a local government entity under Kampala city council (KCC), due to maladministration characterized by failure in city service delivery, mismanagement of funds among others ignited various institutional pressures to push for its transformation into a semi-autonomous entity that's Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA). The transformation of KCC to KCCA encountered a lot of resistance from different sources that necessitated divergent strategies for positive receptivity for reforms that enabled it to attain institutional legitimacy. The study explores the various sources of resistance during the transformation period and change management practices that were adopted to create positive receptivity for reforms—thus KCCA's attainment of institutional legitimacy. Through an exploratory sequential design, a sample of participants was sequentially selected using purposive and snowball sampling techniques until the saturation point was reached. Data generated through interviews was analyzed using a blend of grounded theory analysis and the Gioia cording method. The findings reveal that the KCCA Act, the populist agenda of elected leaders, and mixing politics and work were major sources of resistance. Secondly, both institutional oriented strategies such as creating a cultural shift, asserting, character of the team leader, galvanizing a team that could deliver, etc and community-oriented strategies such as walking with the community, identifying key stakeholders, and harmonizing power centers were adopted to create positive receptivity for the reforms. The study draws the attention of administrators and policy makers to the need for thorough scrutiny of any law to be made on the transformation of public entities but also to the need for continuous amendment of the KCCA Act, to streamline political activities in the city and regulate the mixing of politics with technical work. In addition to that since the city manager model has proven to be effective in the management of the city, it can be adopted by new cities and develop succession planning for the leadership of KCCA as frequent changes in the leadership had a negative effect on the progress.

Published in Journal of Public Policy and Administration (Volume 9, Issue 4)
DOI 10.11648/j.jppa.20250904.14
Page(s) 244-257
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group
Previous article
Keywords

Change, Resistance, Legitimacy, Receptivity, Kampala, Reforms, Transition

1. Introduction
Although resistance to change is a common phenomenon during organizational transformation, organizations are still faced with the challenges of managing resistance for positive organizational receptivity to change. This is consistent with the assertion by Vann (2004), cited in
[1]
, that there is a gap in the literature on change management in the public sector. Hence, understanding how organizations respond to various external forces for change and internal forces against change will contribute to the management and leadership of both public and private organizations. Selvadurai et al
[2]
points out that change management is the solution for organizations to adapt to internal and external deviations. Consequently, this article is intended to explore the change management practices that were adopted by the leadership of the transformation of KCC to KCCA to mitigate resistance that’s creating positive organizational receptivity for change that enabled it to attain institution legitimacy.
The concept of receptivity to change seems new in the literature on institutional management, but it dates back to the work of
[3]
on change in the public sector and bureaucratic organization, in which they refer to receptivity as:
‘Receptive contexts’ for change are those that enable the progression of a change initiative within the environment, and ‘non-receptive contexts’ are those that hinder the progress of a change initiative
[4]
.
Therefore, successful organizational change is a reciprocal of change management practice and organizational receptivity to change. Knowing that successful organizational change is dependent on organizational receptivity to change, studies on psychological factors influencing receptivity to change and change management practices have become a subject of concern to scholars of institutional management and leadership Chetty, (2015); Backoff & Nutt, (1993), cited in
[2]
.
According to
[5]
, organizations' adaptation to change and structural inertia are visible at the social, psychological, and structural levels. The choice of KCC that was transformed into KCCA brings out the two levels of analysis: the structure of KCC as a local government unit was transformed into the executive authority, where structural changes were carried out, resulting in a shift from the mayoral model to the city manager model for governance structures, and the people who were under one administrative unit were transformed into two administrative arms, the political wing and the technical wing, so the reaction to these changes and how they were reconciled was a point of interest.
2. Statement of the Problem
Globally, public institutions are rampantly faced with reforms, especially in the administration of these organizations that meet the increasing demands of the increasing population
[6]
. Successful change initiatives in an organization will depend on good change management practices during the change process, especially in areas of managing the transition period
[7]
. This fosters positive receptivity to organizational change, hence successful organizational change. That results in improved employee performance and financial gains for the organization McLean, 2007, cited by
[8, 9]
. Despite the massive resources and good plans, government commitment, and will towards initiatives for change, management of these initiatives is still a challenge;
[10]
, cited in
[8]
, and reported that close to 70% of change initiatives are not completed successfully.
In Uganda, the
[11]
on Makerere indicated that there were no records of the lessons learned from the pilot college of health science that could have informed the overall transformation process. This is an indication of how the university was struggling to manage the change process. The pullout of government in Uganda from public-private partnerships in the education sector is another indication of failing change initiatives in the
[12]
, which are attributed to low receptivity to these organizations. Rees et al
[13]
asserts that if change management is mishandled, its cost implications for individuals and organizations and the long-term multiplier effect are extremely high. Given the consequences, it is paramount to understand how change management practices can contribute to successful organizational receptivity to change in public organizations in Uganda.
Therefore, this study sought to explore the change management practices that lead to the receptivity of changes to reforms in KCCA. In response to this, three objectives were studied: to find out the various sources of resistance that resisted the transformation process, thus dragging the receptivity of reforms, to find out the change management practices that the leadership of the transformation adopted to deal with resistance during the transformation period, hence the receptivity of reforms; and to find out the extent to which quantitative results on change management practices to deal with resistance during the transformation of KCCA support the initial qualitative results. The subsequent section of this article presents the conceptual review, theoretical review, methodology, literature review, findings and discussion, conclusion, and recommendation of the study.
3. Change Management
Change management has been defined as an approach to a set of activities, i.e., plan, design, implement, manage, evaluate, and sustain the change initiative within the organization Lientz & Rea, 2004; cited in
[14]
. Change management is a complex social phenomenon with no clear boundaries
[15]
. Therefore, the researcher concludes that the activities involved or carried out during the change process are termed change management practices. With that perspective, change management practices in Uganda's public sector deal with the planning for change, implementation of change, managing the transition, and adaptation to change. Change management is about how effectively and efficiently those processes can be successfully managed so that the initial objectives of the desire for change are attained.
4. Organizational Receptivity to Change
According to
[16]
, receptivity to change is the extent to which the organization (individual, group, and organizational) is willing to adhere to change that is a result of external and internal challenges, innovations, and technological initiatives. Receptivity, according to
[17]
, stands for a person's willingness to accept change, and this can be both at individual and organizational levels. At the organizational level, it focuses on members' willingness to individually and collectively accept proposed changes and their legitimacy.
Pettigrew et al.
[3]
, cited in
[18]
, identify eight key dimensions of receptivity for organizational change in the public sector and bureaucratic organizations. These dimensions include the availability of key people leading change, quality and coherence of policy, long-term environmental pressure, supportive organization culture, effective managerial-clinical relations, a cooperative inter-organization network, simplicity and clarity of goals and priorities, and the fit between the proposed change agenda and its locale. Receptivity, according to
[19]
, is an analytical tool that can be adopted to examine how public organizations are open or receptive to change and how they cope with or manage change for success. This tool, receptivity, has four dimensions: ideological vision, leading change, institutional politics, and implementation capacity. Therefore, this study examined whether the dimensions put forward by
[19]
coincide with the strategies that were adopted by the leadership of the transformation, thus fostering positive receptivity to the transformation. These four dimensions were chosen because they almost fit within the eight dimensions of Pettigrew.
Figure 1. Showing the conceptual framework. Source: developed by the researcher based on review of literature.
5. Contextual Background
The public sector is tasked with the delivery of social and economic public goods, but due to the challenges and the cost of delivering this role, public sector management is constantly changing to find the best way to do its role
[20]
. As a result of Kampala Capital City’s failure to meet public expectations in service delivery due to maladministration, through the Kampala Capital City Authority Act of 2011, it was decided that the city be managed by the central government, thus the creation of KCCA
[21]
. The City Authority has two wings: the political wing headed by the Lord Mayor and the technical wing headed by the Executive Director
[22]
. The transformational process was characterized by the resistance that dragged its attainment of institutional legitimacy, and this necessitated strategies to manage this by creating a positive receptivity for the reforms.
6. Theoretical Background
Technological Acceptance Model 2 (TAM 2)
The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM 2) by
[23, 24, 25]
was adopted to analyze how change management practices can lead to acceptance or rejection of change initiatives. Davis proposes that system use can be explained or predicted by user motivation, which in turn is directly influenced by external factors consisting of the actual system’s features and capabilities. Based on this, TRA modified the theory and concluded that user motivation can be explained by three factors: perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and attitude towards using the system. The assumption is that the attitude of the user towards a system is a major determinant of whether the user uses or rejects the system. The attitude of the user, in turn, is considered to be influenced by two major beliefs: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Perceived ease of use directly influences perceived use fullness, and these two are directly influenced by the system design characteristics x1, x2, and x3, as according to Davis's original TAM
[24]
. Therefore, according to
[26]
, people tend to use or not use a system based on their perception that it will help them increase their job performance (perceived usefulness) and also that the effort required in using the system directly affects the usage behavior (perceived ease of use)
[25]
. In line with the four determinants, the question developed by the researcher is: how are change management practices perceived to have successful organizational receptivity to change?
Figure 2. Showing the Technology Acceptance Model. Source: Adopted from Venkatesh & Davis 2000.
7. Methodology
Through an exploratory sequential research design, an in-depth exploration of the respondent's views on the phenomenon was conducted. This design enabled the researcher to use qualitative results to develop a more complete understanding of the phenomenon and develop new measures or theories that are subsequently confirmed through quantitative techniques. For the qualitative phase, seven participants were selected from the executive arm and the political arm. These were chosen because of their central role in designing strategies that saw receptivity to the transformation, thus helping KCCA attain its institutional legitimacy. During the quantitative phase, the targeted population was enlarged to ensure that a representative sample was obtained so that generalization of the findings was possible; thus, a sample of 252 participants was drawn for the study. Grounded theory analysis was used for qualitative data analysis, and both descriptive and inferential statistical analysis were done during the quantitative phase as the researcher did not only want to describe the characteristics of the variables and respondents but also to make inferences about the target population.
8. Literature Review
Pressures resisting change are forces within an organization that may oppose the proposed change initiative. As
[27]
noted in his force field analysis theory, within an organization there are always two forms of opposing forces: the driving forces for change and the restraining forces, that is, pressures resisting change
[28]
.
[28]
further argue that these restraining internal forces act as barriers to change, which can either be directly or indirectly communicated.
8.1. Sources of Pressure Resisting Change
8.1.1. Organizational Culture
Culture is termed the software of the mind that results from the refinement of the mind by processes like education, art, and literature
[29]
. So, this refinement is the process through which culture can be transformed. Culture is also understood as the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes one group from another
[29]
. Programming means that when culture is learned and once it is established, changing it is likely to be resisted.
[30]
argue that the intrinsic value of culture in public organizations is that it reduces instances of conflict, uncertainty, and turbulence. In the same vein,
[20]
contends that an organizational culture that strengthens employee involvement, rewards teamwork, recognizes individual effort, and incorporates the needs of clients and users inhibits organizational change. Organizational culture builds internal resistance to change, and this will create institutional characteristics resulting from the informal norms and values that members bring to the organization from their social backgrounds, hence forming strong cultures or subcultures in their work groups or departments
[30]
. This means that resistance is entrenched in individuals, groups, and systems or procedures, hence making it difficult to conform to change, especially when it threatens long-established administrative cultures.
8.1.2. Organizational Structure
Scott et al
[5, 30] 
summarize the claim that organizational structure consists of positions and rules that determine who shall or can do what and the various tasks to be executed. Once this structure is established and adapted by members of the organization, changing it may not be easy, thus creating structural inertia. Structural inertia plants a strong pressure, especially during radical changes in organizational strategy and structures, since this threatens the legitimacy of the organization
[31]
. Organizational structures place considerable constraints on leaders in an attempt to change the organization through the formalization of procedures, centralization of authority, and the red tape involved in the transformation process
[32]
. This is because the routines, procedures, and regulations established by the existing structures impose constraints on the proposed changes and are very rigid and entrenched in the organizational culture.
8.1.3. Organizational Leadership
Leadership, according to
[33]
path-goal theory, is about defining the path, removing obstacles, and providing support so that team members can achieve organizational goals. This implies that the leader has a significant influence on the direction of the organization, and because of the trust and confidence that followers have in their leaders, if the leaders do not support the transformation process, there will be resistance to change. Rainey et al
[32, 34]
argue that leaders have to do this by using appropriate coaching and giving direction to clarify the path to the desired destination and removing barriers from those paths and frustrations that arise along the way. Once the followers fail to understand the leader, the leadership strategy, and how they are to benefit, they will resist the leader and sabotage his strategies for change.
8.1.4. Individual Anxiety
Resistance to change in public sector organizations also occurs at the individual level due to the anxiety of the unknown, and this will cause individual resistance to planned changes.
[35]
in their case study on identifying resistance in change management, contend that because individual stakeholders feel disenfranchised of the benefits due to proposed changes, change will fail or result in a battle between those supporting change and those resisting it. Even though organizational structure, leadership, organizational culture, and individual anxiety contribute to internal resistance to change,
[20]
argues that these factors culminate in what is termed a lack of institutional capacity to manage change. Consequently, this individual anxiety slowly piles up into what
[36]
call a web of self-reinforcing narratives that the organization may not be aware of, hence posing resistance to organizational change or a stabilization force for continuity. So, for public sector organizations to conform to external pressures for change and gain institutional legitimacy, it requires great attention to developing strategies that can increase the willingness to accept reform at all levels of the organization.
8.2. Strategies to Deal with Pressures Resisting Change
The change in public sector organizations is based on the assumption that the reforms will create beneficiaries and losers, and losers know very well what they are likely to lose, this creates a high level of internal resistance and may require a coercive force to overcome the internal resistance
[48, 38]
. However, renowned scholars of change management
[39, 40, 38, 32]
, propose several strategies for dealing with this resistance. They argue that advanced education and communication of the proposed changes and the reasons for change enable organization members to see the need and logic of change, hence reducing resistance.
They further claim that the participation and involvement of potential resisters in the change process can lead them to forestall resistance. This goes hand in hand with negotiation, especially with those that have legitimate resistance. For this reason, coalitions may be built that can champion change among other members. Kotter and colleagues offer other strategies like facilitation and support during the transition, manipulation, and co-opt of potential resisters to weaken the pressures resisting change by appointing the leader to a strategic position in the change process, and where need be, explicit and implicit coercion can be adopted to deal with resistance, especially in times of urgency.
Jones et al
[28]
depart from Kotter's strategies and argue that resistance can be reduced by scaling down the scope of change and also introducing change in phases, as a great magnitude of change will stimulate wider resistance that can be difficult to deal with. They further claim that since the change will cause a breakaway of relationships, the fear of losing relationships can also lead to internal resistance among members, which can be manipulated by ensuring the maintenance of these relationships or facilitating the creation of new ones after the transition. Jones et al [28] suggest other strategies, such as enhancing the trust and confidence that members have in their leaders and having a thoughtful, credible plan that members feel will work, hence compelling them to follow.
Recent studies on dealing with resistance by
[41]
explored numerous ways of overcoming resistance, ranging from threats, compulsion, criticism, persuasion, inducement and rewards, compromise and bargaining, guarantees against personal loss, and psychological support
[42]
. Though all these are the right strategies, several studies conducted on resistance in public sector organizations have emphasized Kotter's strategies, which are: political support, appropriate leadership, having a coalition for change, i.e., internal and external support for change, communication, and stakeholder involvement
[42, 43, 39, 20]
.
For strategies to deal with resistance that may accrue during the course and outcome of changes in the public sector,
[30]
offer four perspectives or approaches that can be adopted to mitigate resistance and ensure support from the would-be sources of resistance: a hierarchically based instrumental perspective where organizational changes are desired and planned by superior leaders or authorities. Second is the negotiation-based perspective, in which the changes are based on mapping the various interests and resources of different stakeholders who may be affected by the reforms. The third perspective proposed by Christensen is a cultural perspective where reforms and change programs are linked with actions that correspond to established informal structures, norms, and values, as these will influence the organization's structural features. Lastly is the myth perspective, where reforms will be guided more by the widely adopted recipes by specific organizations than by how they are developed and mediated.
Further,
[44, 45]
argue that handling internal resistance during public sector organizational reform will require leaders to serve as institutional entrepreneurs from within the targeted organization or outside the organization to act as catalysts for the proposed reforms, and they help to build legitimacy for the organization. It is therefore observed that for reforms in public sector organizations to successively take root, a multidimensional approach towards internal resistance needs to be adopted.
9. Findings and Discussion
9.1. Sources of Resistance During Transformation
The KCCA Act
The transformation of KCC to KCCA was characterized by resistance right from the process of the enactment of the KCCA Act. The KCCA Act, with its ambiguous and contradicting sections, caused mixed interpretations of the Act.
You know very well that towards the end of her first tenure there was a legal interpretation of the Act that gave similar functions to the Executive Director and the Lord Mayor, and because both were lawyers and each reading from his or her page seemed right, that is where most of the antagonism came from. Antigonism became so strong that the technical wing and political wing were not in harmony, just because of how the law was drafted. KPM05.
For example, on several occasions, different voices could be heard demanding the amendment of the KCCA Act. Subsequently, later in 2019, some sections of the Act were amended.
Populist agenda of elected leaders
The resistance during transformation was partly attributed to the populist agenda of elected leaders, as mentioned: “Yes, leaders at different levels contributed more to the resistance of the transformation... and the hurdles we went through, one of them was our elected leaders whose agenda was different: they had a populist agenda." KPK02. In support of this, the information retrieved from the
[46]
also reported that political interference in the implementation of city ordinances resulted in lawlessness in the city, thus hampering the transformation process. Furthermore, the first Executive Director, in her resignation statement, also expressed concern over the politicization of various KCCA programs, which hampered progress
[47]
.
The politically elected leaders of KCCA were confronted with diverse interests in executing their mandate of overseeing the operations of the technical wing, and this was another root cause of resistance. Although society, through a democratic process, gives elected leaders a mandate to steer public entities, at times this power is abused
[30]
. For instance, in this case, they could be seen supporting activities of the public that were against KCCA, putting in a lot of effort to paint a negative image of KCCA, thus frustrating the transformation and dragging behind the achievement of its goals.
House et al
[33]
, with their path-goal theory, assumed that the role of these elected leaders is about defining the path, removing obstacles, and providing support so that the team members can achieve organizational goals. This was not the case here. Therefore, it is clear that the technical wing was determined to reorganize the city, but the political leaders were determined to please voters. This gave the resistance the momentum to frustrate the transformation because the politically elected leaders were many and at different levels. Despite prior engagement between the technical wing and the political wing on the programs to be implemented, the elected leaders could turn around to oppose them and even incite the masses to do the same.
This unexpected behavior of some elected leaders can be attributed to their perception and interpretation of the enacted environment. Selznick et al
 [49]
claim that members of the organization have to first understand it before they can decide on how to respond to it, and therefore, their response will depend on how correctly they understand and interpret the pressures behind the change process, thus resisting or surrendering to the pressures.
Mixing politics and work
Mixing politics and work surfaced in several ways that dragged the transformation out as the participants interviewed brought it out. One of the participants noted that the enactment of the KCCA Act was politically rushed as the country was heading towards general elections and that the government had an interest in the political governance of the city. "I think one of the hurdles is politics. Politics is a big challenge. People want to politicize everything, including work, and once you do that, you're bound to fail." KPK02. This demonstrates that, being the capital city of the country, the politics of the central government and local governments cannot be isolated from the city administration. The entrenchment of politics, and worst of all, multiparty politics, had a significant effect on the transformation process. Consequently, delivering a transformation in such a politically divided community wasn’t easy, as any proposed transformation project could be viewed through political lenses, whereby the opposition cadres could drag the process through resistance to deny the other side political gain.
However, there is a view that this resistance might not have appeared as massive as it did had the leadership of the transformation taken into consideration
[28]
assertions that resistance can be reduced by scaling down the scope of change and also introducing change in phases, as a great magnitude of change stimulates wider resistance that can be difficult to deal with. This was possible because the law did not provide for a time limit nor a model of transformation, thus a phased approach for implementing the transformation.
Even though scholars like
[29, 30]
point out that organizational culture that is entrenched in individuals, groups, and systems or procedures builds internal resistance to change, this was not the case for KCC. Instead, it could be said that the culture that had been built up in this broken system was a culture of letting everyone do what he or she wants—a laissez-faire culture—a culture that was not built on shared values, hence the lack of institutional cohesion. Hannan et al
[31]
claim that structural inertia plants a strong pressure, especially during radical changes in organizational strategy and structures, since this threatens the legitimacy of the organization.
In conclusion, the study findings on the sources of resisting pressure for change during the transformation of KCC to KCCA to a large extent differ from Maurer's (1996) typology on the sources of resistance, in which he asserts that it is a three-level continuum. According to Maurer (1996), cited by
[28]
, resistance during transformation is at three levels that serve as factors for resistance: lack of adequate information, emotional reaction due to perception of change, and lastly, trust and confidence in the leadership.
9.2. Dealing with the Resistance for Change and KCCA’s Institutional Legitimacy
During the transformation of KCC to KCCA, pressures resisting these changes existed, and these were both internal and external to KCC for the leadership to successfully deliver the transformation and attain the general acceptability of KCCA; thus, to attain institutional legitimacy, these pressures had to be controlled. Controlling or eliminating pressures that resisted the transformation of KCC to KCCA and for it to attain institutional legitimacy took two approaches: those that were directed towards eliminating or reducing resistance within the institution, which were conceived as institutional-oriented strategies, and the community-oriented strategies that were directed towards eliminating or reducing resistance encountered within the community while implementing the transformation.
Asserting institutional direction
Given that KCCA was a new entity created a midst resistance, the first strategy to deal with resistance was to assert institutional direction. That’s letting all the stakeholders and partners understand what KCCA is and stands for. This was through management declaring its strategic direction as far as transformation. The management had to answer the following questions as one of the participants put them forward: “Transformation is about where we are going: where do we want to go? Why there, and how do we get there? And most importantly, how do we know that we have gotten there?” KPK02. The information retrieved from the KCCA ministerial policy statement (2013/14) indicated that KCCA had successfully effected a series of reforms to set the path for sustainable transformation in the city. Furthermore, the quantitative results indicated a positive relationship between asserting institutional direction as a way of creating positive receptivity for institutional legitimacy. This meant that the leadership of the transformation, adopting those strategies to assert the institutional direction, positively contributed to positive receptivity to change, thus the attainment of institutional legitimacy for KCCA.
This illustrated that providing clear information and changing the mindset of those resisters who were resisting because of the misinformation about the transformation of the city positively welcomed the reforms. This was the ideological vision according to
[19]
strategies to create positive receptivity for change. In this case, those who understood and were fed up with the broken system at City Hall and were yearning for change could easily support the transformation.
Creating a cultural shift
Transforming from an old system to a new institution meant a culture change. As noted by the participants, "No, we did not change culture, but we created a new culture based on our core values, which are: client care, integrity, excellence, innovativeness, and strong teamwork." KJM01. The quantitative results indicated a positive relationship between creating cultural shifts as a way of creating positive receptivity for institutional legitimacy. This meant that the leadership of the transformation, creating a cultural shift from the previous tainted culture, reduced the resistance to the general acceptability of KCCA, hence strongly contributing to the attainment of the institutional legitimacy of KCCA.
The sentiments above clearly underscore the significance of a strong culture entrenched in the institution—what
[3]
called supportive organizational culture as a strategy for enhancing positive receptivity for change—which, if not created, can frustrate and draw back the transformation process.
[30]
contend that organizational culture builds internal resistance to change; this emanates from the informal norms and values shared by members. Therefore, the laissez-faire culture that had been entrenched in the system of KCC could not support the achievement of the objective of the transformation, hence the need for a cultural shift, that is, a change from a laissez-faire culture to a corporate culture that builds institutional cohesion.
This culture change also involved a change in institutional values, logo, mission, and vision to represent the new corporate entity. This conformed with
[29]
, who recommended that successful change in organizational culture is not only changing at the superficial level but must be supported by more fundamental changes at deeper levels of heroes, rituals, corporate culture, and the values of leadership.
Therefore, changing organizational culture means instituting new procedures and systems that would build resistance to the new pressures for change or those in abeyance
[29]
. The study further revealed that the new culture manifested itself in the way staff were working; even contractors could work at night; the staff went beyond working hours because they had to deliver results; zero tolerance for corruption; etc. Consequently, the corporate culture that was instilled and nurtured in KCCA could, over time, constrain any future proposed changes as postulated by the path dependence theory
[38]
.
Galvanizing a team that could deliver a transformation
Since the leader of this transformation knew the challenges ahead of her in terms of resistance, which necessitated her to build a competent team that could deliver a transformation and not just build a team, this is what
[3]
termed a cooperative inter-organization network as a strategy for enhancing positive receptivity for change. It is not only about building a team but also maintaining its cohesiveness and loyalty; that is, galvanizing a team. One of the participants interviewed noted: "Galvanizing a team that believes in you is very fundamental for delivering the transformation." Now, building a team that can be relied on to deliver a transformation is very difficult; that's why most of the transformations fail.” KPM05. The quantitative results indicated a positive relationship between galvanizing a team that could deliver a transformation and creating positive receptivity for institutional legitimacy. This meant that the leadership of the transformation embarking on team galvanization strategies strongly reduced the penetration of resisters and distractors, hence improving the general acceptability of KCCA.
Building a team that can deliver is one of the cardinal roles of institutional leaders.
[50]
argues that leaders have the duty of maintaining internal consistency, overcoming external enemies, and securing organizational legitimacy. Because of allegiance and shifts in power bases, maintaining loyalty and cohesiveness within the team that can keep the transformation on course does not come automatically; hence, a leader of the transformation had to devise strategies that could help galvanize the team.
[32, 34]
argue that leaders have to do this by using appropriate coaching and giving direction to clarify the path to the desired destination and removing barriers from those paths and frustrations that arise along the way. For instance, in the case of KCCA, the leader had to identify and punish errant staff, that is, the use of the 'carrot and stick method. This was done through a staff monitoring team unit and the use of technology. It is evident that the staff monitoring unit established was to hunt down internal resistance to the transformation; the technology would also curb bad practices that would tarnish the image of the transformation and the institution. As a leader, she had a team that was determined and committed to delivering the transformation.
Sticking to areas of focus
Secondly, the leadership had to stick to areas of focus because this transformation had been tried and failed because of detractors and resisters. This time, the team had to stick to the main goal. As noted by the participant, "because there were a lot of reports on the performance of KCC, e.g., the Kasasiro (garbage), it was very key that we focus on the issues of roads and Kasasiro; that's why we were very keen on coordinating those issues" (KPM05). The quantitative results indicated a positive relationship between sticking to areas of focus as a way of creating positive receptivity for institutional legitimacy. This meant that the leadership of the transformation, adopting those strategies intended to stick to areas of focus, positively contributed to positive receptivity to change, thus the attainment of institutional legitimacy for KCCA.
The above exposition on areas of focus represents what
[3]
termed the fit between the proposed change agenda and its locale as a strategy for enhancing positive receptivity to change. Sticking to areas of focus suggests that these strategies were based on the number of reports that had been done on the performance of KCC and its management and also on the needs of city dwellers. This implies that at that time, because the team knew that they were responding to the needs of the locality, they moved on to work towards achieving the targets regardless of the lack of support from the politicians, and on many occasions, the political wing could be heard lamenting that the technical wing had sidelined them, had not involved them, and so forth. Sticking to areas of focus could only be possible through enhancing the trust and confidence that team members had in their leader and having a thoughtful, credible plan that members felt was going to work, hence compelling them to follow
[28]
.
The study further revealed that, for instance, by sticking to areas of focus in a short period, the leadership of the transformation had started to work on the immediate challenges in service delivery that KCCA was grappling with, and these included management of revenue collection, a poor accountability system, weak enforcement, and a poorly motivated workforce, among others. Such a success that the leadership transformation recorded in securing KCCA's institutional legitimacy was a result of followers (city dwellers) understanding the leader, the leadership strategy, and how they were to benefit as postulated by the leader/follower theory
[40]
.
The character of the leader
The most important strategy that drove these other institutional-oriented strategies to deal with internal resistance was the character of the leader. As noted:
One was to ride above the pettiness that some time would ensue. You know, if you're a team leader, particularly in this case, we had the COE, who wanted to demonstrate that she was different, that she was going to be transformative, but also that her words are going to be her bones; she said, Well, whatever we say, we shall first and foremost be believable. Let people trust and know that if you make a directive or an order, it must be followed, and each and every member of staff has to take a cue and thereafter gets into the public. KCO0.
Consistent with the above, the information retrieved indicated that the leader of the transformation was a distinguished leader who did a commendable job, and in recognition of her as a transformative leader, she was given 38 awards at the local, regional, continental, and global levels
[47]
. The quantitative results indicated a positive relationship between the characters of the leader as a way of creating positive receptivity for institutional legitimacy. This meant that through her character and leadership behavior, the leadership of the transformation positively contributed to positive receptivity for change, thus the attainment of institutional legitimacy for KCCA.
Given the above experiences, it is clear that it takes the leader’s character to galvanize a team, assert institutional direction, change the institutional culture, etc. This is what
[3]
saw as the availability of key people leading change as a strategy for enhancing positive receptivity for change, which coincides with leading change as, according to
[19]
, strategies to create positive receptivity for change.
This tells how the leader of the transformation exhibited an extraordinary character of determination, courage, and authority to transform the city. This character pulled everybody to comply, thus creating belief in the leadership. This is what
[33]
emphasize in their Path-Goal Theory, which posits that the leader defines the path and removes obstacles, implying that the leader has a significant influence on the direction of the organization because of the trust and confidence that followers have in him or her. Contrary to this, the leader can also cause resistance to the proposed changes as postulated by the leader/follower theory; the leader, through his or her leadership, can cause the followers to resist the transformation
[40]
. This was witnessed when elected leaders mobilized the public to resist city transformation programs. The Executive Director, through her character, played her cardinal role of managing internal consistency, overcoming external enemies, and developing external support mechanisms for the organizational legitimacy of KCCA as postulated by
[50, 30, 51]
.
Identifying key stakeholders
One major strategy to deal with external resistance was to identify and understand key stakeholders. As narrated:
One key strategy was to identify the key stakeholders and make sure that those who needed to be informed were continuously informed and those who had been influenced were continuously engaged. That helps. You need to know who, therefore, is your appointing authority, who has the power and influence to decide on your mistakes, what you want to deliver, what the impact of your input is, and what it is that demonstrates that you have worked, that you’re worth a mark, and that you’re delivering. KPM05
Relatedly, the information retrieved also pointed to the significance of satisfied stakeholders in that; for instance, KCCA receiving 60 awards and recognitions and 30 sports awards in recognition of its achievement through national, regional, and international assessments was an indication of the satisfaction of key stakeholders with the transformation
[47]
. In line with this, another piece of information retrieved from the
[52]
indicated that KCCA had garnered support from all stakeholders, development partners, the government, and the general public to realize the transformation drive. The quantitative results indicated a positive relationship between identifying key stakeholders as a way of creating positive receptivity for institutional legitimacy. This meant that the leader’s strategy of identifying key stakeholders during the transformation process significantly led to the positive general acceptability of the transformation and the institutional legitimacy of KCCA.
Based on the above sentiments, we can infer that the strategy of identifying key stakeholders matches
[3]
strategy of effective managerial-clinical relations and also that of
[19]
, which is institutional politics; both of these strategies, when applied during the change process, will enhance positive receptivity to change. As a leader of the transformation, she needed to know those stakeholders who were there for her, the appointing authority where power resides, what these key stakeholders want in terms of transforming the city, and who decides on her mistakes. So, based on understanding the key stakeholders and their needs, the next step was that they needed to be informed continuously and engage those who needed to be engaged. For instance, with such backing from the executive arm of government, it meant that even the likely internal resistors were also neutralized.
When the key stakeholders are satisfied with the progress of the transformation process, they will rally their support for the leadership of the transformation, thus neutralizing all forms of resistance. To further emphasize the point of key stakeholders,
[30, 37]
emphasize this when they claim that public sector organizational reforms can be resisted by different interest groups, societal groups, state employees, and groups within the state that may either not be satisfied with the proposed change or not be willing to give up the privileges provided to them by the state. This strategy was congruent with what
[28]
observed: for organizational change to be successful and legitimate, the leaders of the change process require skills to identify, assess, and harmonize these conflicting forces. This could be through building internal consistency, overcoming external enemies, and developing external support mechanisms for KCCA's legitimacy, as postulated by
[50, 30, 51]
.
The identification of key stakeholders and ensuring their satisfaction with the transformation journey could be further explained by agency theory, which could also explain KCCA's attainment of institutional legitimacy. The agency theory identifies the relationship between the principal and the agent and where the agent is expected to work in the interest of the principal
[53]
. Therefore, the key stakeholder or the principal, according to the theory, once they are satisfied with the performance of the agent, can accord the required legitimacy; consequently, the satisfaction of these key stakeholders accorded KCCA the general acceptability.
Walking with the community
Identifying and understanding key stakeholders alone is not sufficient to deal with external resistance because the masses may resist the proposed changes. Thus, there was a need to engage the community in all programs of the transformation, which was termed walking with the community. As noted, "transformation is about people, systems, and values; it is about things we do daily. People are at the center of transformation. People build the systems." KPK02. In support, the information retrieved from the
[54]
indicated that KCCA had introduced toll-free telephone lines as a way of communicating with city residents and also mobilizing them to participate in transformational programs like cleaning activities in the city. In support of their commitment to walk with the community in the
[52]
, the leadership reiterated its commitment to walk with the community through continuous engagement and accountability. The quantitative results indicated a positive relationship between walking with the community as a way of creating positive receptivity for institutional legitimacy. This meant that the leadership of the transformation constantly engaged the community, and being at the forefront of the city transformation increased the receptivity for the transformation and the general acceptability of KCCA.
The above exposition on walking with the community points to what
[3]
termed simplicity and clarity of goals and priorities as a strategy for enhancing positive receptivity to change. This required creating and building rapport for the institution so that the community feels that they understand and own the transformational programs.
[35]
, in their study on identifying resistance in change management, found out that individual stakeholders may feel disenfranchised of the benefits of the proposed changes; hence, change will fail or result in a battle between those supporting change and those resisting it. Therefore, preparation of the communities through sensitization and communication of the proposed changes and the reasons for them reduces anxiety among people to be affected by the changes as they appreciate the need and logic of these changes, hence reducing resistance
[39, 40, 38, 32]
. The transformation is about people, and if individual concerns are not addressed in the way of making them understand the inside out of the transformation, it may cause individual anxiety to slowly pile up into what
[36]
call a web of self-reinforcing narratives that the organization may not be aware of, hence eating the transformation process.
Harmonizing power centers
Different power centers with divergent interests were a major problem for a successful city transformation that needed to be handled carefully. As narrated, “so, all these power centers are working in a way that inconveniences the technical wing.” KPK02. Relatedly, the information retrieved from the resignation letter of the first Executive Director indicated that she also stressed that "one of the biggest challenges has been to reconcile the competing interests between political perspectives, decisions and strategic plans, policies, regulations, and work plans of the KCCA technical team; consequently, it has become difficult to achieve set targets”
[47]
. The quantitative results indicated a positive relationship between harmonizing power centers as a way of creating positive receptivity for institutional legitimacy. This meant that the leadership of the transformation, relying on the law to challenge these various power centers, created positive receptivity for the transformation, thus increasing the increasing the general acceptability of KCCA.
From the above, we can infer that harmonizing power centers as a strategy is congruent with institutional politics as a strategy to create positive receptivity for change. Similarly, it is also in line with
[3]
strategy of effective managerial-clinical relations for enhancing positive receptivity to change. The powers for city administration were decentralized within different powerhouses, and they turned out to be a challenge for the transformation of the city. For instance, the political wing headed by the Lord Mayor, the technical wing headed by the Executive Director, etc. had different interests in the administration of the city, thus resisting the transformational programs. To harmonize these power centers was a war that the leader of the transformation engaged in, as Lindblom (1994), as cited in
[35]
, argue that to overcome the resistance, the leader of the change process has to engage in a political struggle, and without it, change cannot be realized. Relatedly, even though it was a challenge to reconcile the different power centers,
[55]
contend that from a resource-based view theory, organizations are vulnerable to inputs and resources, legitimacy, and firm capabilities, respectively; thus, the leadership of the transformation had conformed to institutional pressures.
Resistance to changes in the public sector put forward by the leaders at different levels should not only be perceived with a negative connotation but also as a strategic response
[49]
, because it is within their cardinal role as leaders to maintain internal consistency, overcome external enemies, and secure organizational legitimacy
[50]
. However, in such a situation,
[39, 40, 38, 32]
recommend that the involvement and participation of potential resisters in the change process can lead them to forego resistance. They further argue that this goes hand in hand with negotiation, especially with those that have legitimate resistance, hence building coalitions.
Nevertheless, the study findings on how to handle resistance during public sector reforms concur with
[30]
four approaches or perspectives—hierarchically based, instrumental, negotiation-based, cultural, and mythical—that can be adopted to mitigate resistance and ensure support from the would-be sources of resistance that may occur during the course and outcome of changes in the public sector.
9.3. The Extent to Which Quantitative Results on the Institutional Legitimacy of KCCA Support the Initial Qualitative Results
The result from measuring the extent to which the elimination of pressures resisting change contributed to the institutional legitimacy of KCCA indicated that the model is linear. This meant that there existed a linear relationship between the institutional legitimacy of KCCA and strategies for dealing with pressures resisting change. The multiple correlation coefficient (R = 0.947) indicates a large correlation between the predictor (strategies to deal with resistance) and the attainment of institutional legitimacy for KCCA. The sign of R was positive, which meant that as the value of the predictor variables increased, the mean value of attaining the institutional legitimacy of KCCA also tended to increase. The model is well fit (R-squared = 0.897), meaning 89.7% of the observed data fits the model. That is, 89.7% of the variation in institutional legitimacy of KCCA was explained by the variance in the constructs of strategies to deal with pressures resisting change. The standard error of the estimation was small (0.41), meaning that predictions made with the model are accurate.
Therefore, the study demonstrated that strategies for dealing with pressures resisting change strongly predicted attainment of institutional legitimacy of KCCA, thus meaning that these strategies created a positive receptivity for the transformation, and there existed a positive and strong relationship between strategies for eliminating pressures resisting change and attainment of institutional legitimacy of KCCA. The study further revealed that as the value of the strategies for eliminating pressures resisting change (predictor variables) increased, the mean value of attaining the institutional legitimacy of KCCA also tended to increase. Consequently, 89.7% of the variation in institutional legitimacy of KCCA is attributed to the variance in the constructs of strategies to deal with pressures resisting change.
10. Conclusion, Implication and Recommendations
The transformation process was characterized by resistance; noticeable resistance merged with conflicts was the external one that characterized the implementation period, and this resistance stemmed from three main sources: the controversial KCCA Act, the populist agenda of elected leaders, and mixing politics and work. Majorly, the resistance to the transformation and the slow progress were attributed to; the ambiguity and contradictions within sections of the KCCA Act was the major sources conflict between the political wing and the technical win something that dragged the transformation process. The elected leaders with their populist agenda built on the existing disharmony between the two wings to front their populist agenda thereby interference in the implementation of city ordinances resulting into lawlessness in the city, thus hampering the transformation process. Practically, this points to the scrutiny of any law to be made on the transformation of public entities during formulation but also to the need for continuous amendment of the KCCA Act, hence streamlining politics in the city.
The politics of the central government and local governments took center stage in the transformation process; for instance, the composition of the KCCA took sides as the political wing was composed of a majority of members of the opposition parties in the country and the technical wing was perceived to be cadres of the ruling party; therefore, resistance started by mixing politics with work. The political wing would politicize all the actions and strategies of the transformation, resulting in political backlash and sabotaging the implementation process. Further, this calls on policymakers to streamline political activities in the city and regulate the mixing of politics with technical work.
The organizational structure of the defunct KCC, which was designed based on a local government arrangement with administrative powers entrusted to the Lord Mayor (Mayoral model), had it not been changed to the City Manager model, where powers are entrusted to the Executive Director, was going to result in structural inertia towards the proposed change process as it threatened the legitimacy of KCCA. The city manager model of governance transferred power from the hands of the politician to the technical wing headed by the executive director, this handicapped the politician who could politicize every action hence providing a transition period with limited structural inertia. Since this city manager model has proven to be effective in the management of the city, it can be adopted by new cities.
Dealing with resistance during the transformation and implementation of strategic responses to the demands for reforms centered on the character of the leader, hence the significance of the leader and the leadership style, practically, this points at the considerations for the leadership at the helm of KCCA and the mandate to transform the city. Succession planning for the leadership of KCCA is important as frequent changes in the leadership had a negative effect on the progress. Grooming of leaders and internal recruitment that focuses on persons that are familiar and experienced with the system is crucial for institutional sustainability and resilience. Newly and externally recruited to managers always carry on their Ego and it takes time for them to get assimilated into institutional culture and vision and they are also likely to fall into the organizational political traps. All these tend to affect the pace of transition and organizational performance. The frequent changes in leadership that took place in KCCA had negative effect on the implementation and pace of the transition thus indirectly impacting on relationship wit its stakeholders.
Given the fact that the study revealed the different sources from which resistance that characterized the transformation emanated, it is now possible to take preventive measures such as having a comprehensive, enabling law, or the mother law that forms the foundation of city transformation. Another point to observe here is the government's commitment or political will and not letting politics drive the enactment of these legislations, as this carries wrong political motives, which in the end breed political wrangles in the administration and governance of the city. There is a need for a clear law to spell out the type of political leaders we need in the city, limiting their political influence, as the study indicated that mixing politics and work is bound to fail or degenerate. And also the fact that successful city transformation does not end with delivering or implementing the transformation programs; it should also focus on the continuity and sustainability of the reforms in the city, thus guarding it against transformation degeneration.
Abbreviations

KCC

Kampala City Council

KCCA

Kampala Capital City Authority

TAM

Technology Acceptance Model
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to the technical and political arm of KCCA for allowing me to do this study and also that they fully participated in the study.
Author Contributions
David Lwanga: Conceptualization
Declaration of Interest Statement
I, Lwanga David, acknowledge that this is my original research work, and I did it without any financial support.
Funding
I testify that this research study was not financially sponsored by either an individual or an organization, and all the financial resources for the study and preparation of the manuscript were the researchers' input only.
Data Availability Statement
The data set generated and analyzed during this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest
No conflict of interest or role conflict that persisted during the period of conducting this study.
References
[1] Kuipers Ben S, Higgs M, Kickert W, Tummers L, Grandia J, & der V. (n.d.). The management of change in public organisations: A literature review. Public Administration, 1–45.
[2] Selvadurai, A. (2013). Change Management in the Public Sector. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.
[3] Pettigrew, A., Ferlie, E., & McKee, L. (1992). Shaping strategic change ‐ The case of the NHS in the 1980s. Public Money & Management, 12(3), 27–31.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09540969209387719

[4] Dimitri Batras, C. D. (2014). Debate Organizational change theory: implications for health promotion practice. Health Promotion International, Vol. 31 No. 1.
[5] Scott, W. R. (2003). Organisations Rational, Natural, and Open system. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
[6] Denhardt, J. V. (2007). The New Public Service: Serving, not steering. M. E. Sharpe, Inc.: New York.
[7] Sinem, S. İ. (2014). Organizational Change: Importance of Leadership Style and Training. Management and Organizational Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2.
[8] Elijah, N. N. (2016). Critical Review of Literature on Change Management on Employees Performance. International Journal of Research In Social Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 3.
[9] Wanza, L. and Nkuraru, J. K. (2016) Influence of Change Management on Employee Performance: A Case of University of Eldoret, Kenya. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 7, 190-199.
[10] Balogun, J., & Hailey, V. H. (2004). Exploring Strategic Change (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
[11] Rwendeire, A. (2017). "Bring the Future to the Present" The Visitation Committee on Makerere University 2016. Kampala.
[12] James, K. (2018, January, 17) Govt to stop funding to 800 private USE schools. Uganda’s Daily Monitor. Retrieved From

https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/govt-to-stop-funding-to-800-private-use-schools-1736078

[13] Rees, K. E. (2015). Organisational Change and Workplace Stress in Teaching and Learning Settings: Case Study Evidence from a Public Sector University in the UK. Springer International Publishing Switzerland, 167-177.
[14] Otsupius, A. I.-I. (2016). Organisational Change Management: A Strategic Approach for Organizational Effectiveness. International Journal For Research In Business, Management And Accounting, Volume-2 | Issue-7.
[15] Fritzenschaft, T. (2014). Critical Success Factors of Change Management An Empirical Research in German Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Hochschule Heilbronn: Springer Gabler.
[16] Aborlo & Edwinah (2014). Re-Engineering Corporate Culture for Organizational Receptivity to Change. European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 6, No. 29.
[17] Sullivan, M. (2000). An Instrument to Assess OrganisationalChange Capabilities for E-BusinessTransformation. Worcester Polytecchnic Institute.
[18] Melchor, O. H. (2008). Managing Change in OECD governments: An Introductory Framework", OECD,. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance No. 12.
[19] Butler, M. J. (2003). Managing from the Inside Out: Drawing on ‘Receptivity’ to Explain Variation in Strategy Implementation. British Journal of Management, Vol. 14, S47–S60.
[20] Chemengich, M. K. (2013). Managing Strategic Change in Public Sector. Standard Research Journal of Business Management, Vol 1(1): 1-40.
[21] G. O. U. (2011). Kampala Capital City Act 2011: Vol. CIV (Issue 1). UPPC, Entebbe.
[22] Gil, N. A. (2015). Kampala City Authority: The Turn Around of Uganda's Capital. Researchgate, 292976409.
[23] Viswanath Venkatesh, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2): 186-204.
[24] Chuttur, M. (2009). Overview of the Technology Acceptance Model: Origins Developments and Future Directions. Working Papers on Information Systems (p. 9(37)). USA. Sprouts: Indiana University.
[25] Paul Legrisa. (2002). Why Do People Use Information Technology? A Critical Review of the Technology Acceptance Model. Information & Management, 40 (2003) 191–204.
[26] Davis, F. D. (1985). A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/15192

[27] Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper.
[28] Jones, B., Brazzel, M., & NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science (2006). The NTL Handbook of Organization Development and Change: Principles, Practices, and Perspectives. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
[29] Hofstede, G., & Minkov, G. J. H. M. M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations.

Mcgraw-hill.com

[30] Christensen, B. T., Laegreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rovic, K. A. (2007). Organization Theory and the Public Sector : Instrument, Culture and Myth.
[31] Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural Inertia and Organizational Change: American Sociological Review, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 149-164.
[32] Rainey, H. G. (2009). Understanding and Managing Public Organizations 4th Edition. United States of America: Jossey-Bass.
[33] House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-Goal Theory of Leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 9, 81-97.
[34] Tompkins, J. R. (2005). Organization Theory and Public Management. USA: Clark Baxter.
[35] Trader‐Leigh, K. E. (2002), "Case study: identifying resistance in managing change", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 138-155.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810210423044

[36] Geiger, D., & Antonacopoulou, E. (2009). Narratives and Organizational Dynamics. 411–436.
[37] Kjaer*, A. M. (2004). ‘Old brooms can sweep too!’ An overviewof rulers and public sector reforms in Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya. Modern African Studies, Vol, 42, 3 pp. 389–413.
[38] Hayes, J. (2014). Theory and practice of Change Management. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
[39] Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business Review, 86(7-8).
[40] Armstrong, M. (2010). Armstrong’s Essential Management Practice Human Resource. A Guide to People Management. Kogan Page Limited.
[41] Judson, A. S. (1991), "Invest in a High‐Yield Strategic Plan", Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 34-39.

https://doi.org/10.1108/eb039428

[42] Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public Sector. April.
[43] Madinah, N., Boerhannoeddin, A., Noriza, R., Raja, B., & Michael, B. (2015). Recentralization of Kampala City Administration in Uganda: Implications for Top and Bottom Accountability.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015591017

[44] Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2015). Public Sector Management Reform in Developing Countries: Perspectives Beyond NPM Orthodoxy. Public Administration and Development, Vol, 35, 222–237.
[45] Fuglsang, L. (2008). Interpreting the Means and Goals Innovation in Danish Public Libraries. In S. S. Scheuer, The Anatomy of Change – A Neo-Institutionalist Perspective (pp. pp,). Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.
[46] KCCA, (2011-12) Annual Report and Financial Statement.
[47] Musisi, j. (2018). FULL 21-PAGE LETTER: I Can No Longer Work For You – Jennifer Musisi Resigns As KCCA ED. Retrieved from Grapevine News:

https://www.thegrapevine.co.ug/full-21-page-letter-i-can-no-longer-work-for-you-jennifer-musisi-resigns-as-kcca-ed/

[48] Cummings, T. G. and Worley, C. G. (2009) Organization Development & Change. 9th Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, Mason.
[49] Selznick, P. (1957) Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation. Harper & Row, New York, 62, 67-68.
[50] Washington, M., Boal, K. B., & Davis, J. W. (2007). Institutional Leadership: past, present, and future. The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism,

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387

[51] KCCA (2014). Strategic Plan 2014/2015-2018/19: Laying the Foundation for Kampala City Transformation. KCCA.
[52] Mallin, C. (2013) Corporate Governance. 4th Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[53] KCCA at 2 Years Performance Highlights. Kampala: Kampala.
[54] Scott D. Julian, Joseph C. Ofori-Dankwa, and Robert T. Justis, (2008). Understanding Strategic Responses to Interest Group Pressures. Strategic Management Journal, Strat. Mgmt. J., 29: 963–984.

https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.698

[55] Boonstra, J. J. (2004). Dynamics of Organizational Change and Learning. England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Cite This Article
Plain Text BibTeX RIS

  • APA Style

    Lwanga, D., Koyohairwe, S., Eitu, I. (2025). Managing Change in Cities: Transition Kampala Capital City to Kampala Capital City Authority. Journal of Public Policy and Administration, 9(4), 244-257. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20250904.14

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Lwanga, D.; Koyohairwe, S.; Eitu, I. Managing Change in Cities: Transition Kampala Capital City to Kampala Capital City Authority. J. Public Policy Adm. 2025, 9(4), 244-257. doi: 10.11648/j.jppa.20250904.14

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Lwanga D, Koyohairwe S, Eitu I. Managing Change in Cities: Transition Kampala Capital City to Kampala Capital City Authority. J Public Policy Adm. 2025;9(4):244-257. doi: 10.11648/j.jppa.20250904.14

    Copy | Download 

  • @article{10.11648/j.jppa.20250904.14,
  author = {David Lwanga and Stella Koyohairwe and Isaih Eitu},
  title = {Managing Change in Cities: Transition Kampala Capital City to Kampala Capital City Authority
},
  journal = {Journal of Public Policy and Administration},
  volume = {9},
  number = {4},
  pages = {244-257},
  doi = {10.11648/j.jppa.20250904.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20250904.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.jppa.20250904.14},
  abstract = {Kampala city was formally governed as a local government entity under Kampala city council (KCC), due to maladministration characterized by failure in city service delivery, mismanagement of funds among others ignited various institutional pressures to push for its transformation into a semi-autonomous entity that's Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA). The transformation of KCC to KCCA encountered a lot of resistance from different sources that necessitated divergent strategies for positive receptivity for reforms that enabled it to attain institutional legitimacy. The study explores the various sources of resistance during the transformation period and change management practices that were adopted to create positive receptivity for reforms—thus KCCA's attainment of institutional legitimacy. Through an exploratory sequential design, a sample of participants was sequentially selected using purposive and snowball sampling techniques until the saturation point was reached. Data generated through interviews was analyzed using a blend of grounded theory analysis and the Gioia cording method. The findings reveal that the KCCA Act, the populist agenda of elected leaders, and mixing politics and work were major sources of resistance. Secondly, both institutional oriented strategies such as creating a cultural shift, asserting, character of the team leader, galvanizing a team that could deliver, etc and community-oriented strategies such as walking with the community, identifying key stakeholders, and harmonizing power centers were adopted to create positive receptivity for the reforms. The study draws the attention of administrators and policy makers to the need for thorough scrutiny of any law to be made on the transformation of public entities but also to the need for continuous amendment of the KCCA Act, to streamline political activities in the city and regulate the mixing of politics with technical work. In addition to that since the city manager model has proven to be effective in the management of the city, it can be adopted by new cities and develop succession planning for the leadership of KCCA as frequent changes in the leadership had a negative effect on the progress.},
 year = {2025}
}

    Copy | Download 

  • TY  - JOUR
T1  - Managing Change in Cities: Transition Kampala Capital City to Kampala Capital City Authority

AU  - David Lwanga
AU  - Stella Koyohairwe
AU  - Isaih Eitu
Y1  - 2025/11/14
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20250904.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.jppa.20250904.14
T2  - Journal of Public Policy and Administration
JF  - Journal of Public Policy and Administration
JO  - Journal of Public Policy and Administration
SP  - 244
EP  - 257
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2640-2696
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20250904.14
AB  - Kampala city was formally governed as a local government entity under Kampala city council (KCC), due to maladministration characterized by failure in city service delivery, mismanagement of funds among others ignited various institutional pressures to push for its transformation into a semi-autonomous entity that's Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA). The transformation of KCC to KCCA encountered a lot of resistance from different sources that necessitated divergent strategies for positive receptivity for reforms that enabled it to attain institutional legitimacy. The study explores the various sources of resistance during the transformation period and change management practices that were adopted to create positive receptivity for reforms—thus KCCA's attainment of institutional legitimacy. Through an exploratory sequential design, a sample of participants was sequentially selected using purposive and snowball sampling techniques until the saturation point was reached. Data generated through interviews was analyzed using a blend of grounded theory analysis and the Gioia cording method. The findings reveal that the KCCA Act, the populist agenda of elected leaders, and mixing politics and work were major sources of resistance. Secondly, both institutional oriented strategies such as creating a cultural shift, asserting, character of the team leader, galvanizing a team that could deliver, etc and community-oriented strategies such as walking with the community, identifying key stakeholders, and harmonizing power centers were adopted to create positive receptivity for the reforms. The study draws the attention of administrators and policy makers to the need for thorough scrutiny of any law to be made on the transformation of public entities but also to the need for continuous amendment of the KCCA Act, to streamline political activities in the city and regulate the mixing of politics with technical work. In addition to that since the city manager model has proven to be effective in the management of the city, it can be adopted by new cities and develop succession planning for the leadership of KCCA as frequent changes in the leadership had a negative effect on the progress.
VL  - 9
IS  - 4
ER  -

    Copy | Download

Author Information

  • David Lwanga

    Faculty of Business and Management Sciences, Valley University of Science and Technology, Bushenyi Western, Uganda

    Contact Email

    http://orcid.org/0009-0006-0197-5020

  • Stella Koyohairwe

    Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Uganda Management Institute, Kampla, Uganda

  • Isaih Eitu

    Faculty of Business and Management Sciences, Valley University of Science and Technology, Bushenyi Western, Uganda

Download PDF
Submit an Article

About Us

Science Publishing Group (SciencePG) is an Open Access publisher, with more than 300 online, peer-reviewed journals covering a wide range of academic disciplines.

Learn More About SciencePG

Products

Information

Important Link

Copyright © 2012 -- 2025 Science Publishing Group – All rights reserved.