NPR vs PM: The Battle of the Dichotomy

NPR vs PM: The Battle of the Dichotomy

Dichotomy, as viewed on the public administrative levels, can be viewed as separation or as a hierarchy. Historically, many politicians were fans of “big government”. In their eyes, it was better to have multiple divisions of tasks divided up into departments that report to somebody that reports to somebody and so on until the President or CEO is reached. A major change took place around the 90’s. Politicians begin to tinker with the notion of shrinking government to make processes more efficient. Moreover, some presidents even attempted at taking private sector approaches to everyday public administration activities. Two programs take center stage in this discussion, National Performance Review (NPR) and President’s Management Agenda (PMA). Policies such as the NPR and the POMA are part of a broader government reform trend in American public administration and its European counterparts. Let’s take a look at these two policies in more detail.

National Performance Review was enacted during the Clinton-Gore administration (1993 – 2001). The goal of NPR was to reform the federal government. This was to be done by reinventing government principles and exhorted federal agencies to downsize, eliminate unnecessary regulation, focus on results, and offer customer service equal to or better than “the best in business”. The Clinton administration wanted the federal agencies to become more like businesses. Essentially, the NPR viewed the citizens as customers and treated them in the same manner businesses would seek customer satisfaction. The NPR targeted opportunities for waste reduction and offered hundreds of specific recommendations for managerial and technological improvements. High level initiatives avoided extreme politicization and received generally positive evaluations for achieving most major goals. Reform proposals were drawn from private manufacturing successes in Japan and the United States during the previous decade and selectively converted to the public-service sector. As mentioned in the opening paragraph, many ideas originated in other countries where national governments exercised significantly greater centralized federal control over budget than governments in the United States.

The results of the NPR were mixed. These reforms resulted in the lowest government employment totals, as a percentage of the national population, since the 1950s. However, in terms of shrinking the dichotomy, Clinton and Gore failed to demonstrate how they decreased government’s size and improved its efficiency and what difference it made to the average voter even though the size of government was smaller than when they took office! Although the Clinton administration’s capacity-building efforts initially received tacit support from Congress, management reforms were highly politicized and limited in scope. Nonetheless, the NPR did help prepare many federal agencies for the unimaginable challenges to public management and homeland security that they have faced since 9/11. These reforms had little impact on public opinion or electoral results for the incumbent administration.

President’s Management Agenda was the George W. Bush’s performance management plan for the federal government. The ideological blueprint of the Bush administration, PMA sought to use performance data to make budgetary and programmatic decisions. PMA wanted to implement “pure” top-down, corporate, private-market-based performance management approach. Partly in response to budgetary restraints, changing national priorities, deficit spending, and fiscal stress, Bush favored the broader use of private alternatives such as competitive outsources as a PM measure.

The Bush administration shelved many of the NPR initiatives in early 2001 and the momentum for institutional reforms stalled in the 108^th Congress. As a real-time test of the Bush administration’s PMA reforms, the federal agencies was less satisfactory than many had expected or been promised. Ironically, during his administration in 2001- 2099, the size of bureaucracy as well as the total amount of federal spending and public debt increased more than under any other president since Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1940s!

In closing, it appears that while both the NPR & PM have benefits it would appear that NPR was more successful in attaining the goals. NPR was also successful in shrinking the dichotomy in government, but PM (or the Bush administration in actuality) increased the hierarchy. What the Clinton administration was unsuccessful in was ensuring that the voting public saw all of the benchmarks accomplished via NPR. Bush piggy backed off of NPR’s vision and edited down to a structure of government to his and his constituents liking.

References:
Milakovich, M., & Gordon, G. (2007). Public administration in America. (10th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth.

Dichotomy. (2011). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy

Public Policy

Public Policy

Public policy is something that we as citizens encounter daily. The text book pointed out an example of an automobile and how all of its intricacies had a relation to public policy. This began me thinking about other everyday items such as televisions and microwaves. Each of these items have policies and regulations guiding them from their birth in the factory (regulation of transistor parts of the radio or tubing specifications mandated by legislation of the televisions) all of the way to our consumption (frequency regulations or content ratings). The textbook defines public policy as a relatively stable, purposive course of action or inaction followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern. Simply put, public policy is what the government does or does not do. In order to carry out public policy, officials utilize the public policy process.

In order to have a need for public policy, an issue or need has to arise. This could stem from a new issue or in rebuttal to a newly implemented public policy. Once this need/issue has a voice through public outcry or petition, it is sent up by public officials to potentially become part of the agenda. This step is called problem identification and agenda setting. All public issues/needs do not make it on the agenda. In fact, very few actually make it.

The next step in the public policy process is policy formation. During this phase all possible alternatives to solving the problem are identified. It is here where examination of a series of options is performed to identify the best course of action.

The next phase in the public policy process is called policy adoption. Here, the option of how to solve the public problem is chosen. It is also here that the solution is developed completely so that it can be legitimized or authorized. This can also include taking no action.

The fourth step is called policy implementation. This is the application of the policy to the problem. This can also be viewed as administration the policy. As our text states, the attention in this phase is on what is done to carry the policy into effect or apply adopted policies.

Policy evaluation is the next step in the public policy process. This basically asks the question “Did the policy work?” The bulk of the duties done in this phase are intended to determine what a policy is accomplishing, whether it is achieving its goals, and whether it has other consequences. For example, by implementing a policy on anti-abortion did it cause an outcry from pro-abortion activists?

The final step in the public policy process is policy termination. This commonly is seen when policy isn’t successful. This step basically poses the question “what wasn’t this policy successful?”

As we have covered, public policy is truly an iterative process. It must be flexible and measurable. It also must stay impartial, seeking the best overall outcome.

Dimensions of Diversity

Dimensions of Diversity

Diversity is defined as the condition of having or being composed of differing elements. Furthermore, it can be viewed as an instance of being composed of different elements of qualities (dictionary.com, 2011). Diversity can be found in all facets of life, especially within the work environment. In both public & private sectors, diversity can indeed increase productivity and efficiency. In order for organizations to get the most benefit from diversity, they must first understand the dimensions of diversity. There are 4 layers of diversity (or circles) based on Gardenswartz and Rowe (Gardenswartz and Rowe, 2009). Let’s discuss them in more detail.

The inner circle is labeled as personality. According to Gardenswartz and Rowe, this covers all aspects of a person that may be classified as “personal style.” From a public administrative standpoint, this could be seen through an employee’s charismatic characteristics. This can also include a person’s innovation and drive for success. The second circle is known as the internal dimension. Also known as core dimensions may not be easily changed by an individual. Examples include gender, age, or nationality. While this should not have much bearing in public administration, this could inadvertently potentially affect ones feelings about co-workers or bosses. Imagine how someone 40 years old must feel when reporting to a 25 year old.

The third circle is called external dimensions. This dimension commonly includes educational background, appearance, or work experiences. Looking at this from a public administrative view, this can be noticed in one’s managerial style or skill set. Finally, the fourth circle is known as organizational dimensions. They can be defined by corporate or institutional affiliation. General examples of this dimension include the duration of employment, type of employment, or field of study. This can be noticed in public administration when identifying the specialization of tasks or subject matter experts.

When properly utilized, diversity in public and private organizations can lead to more innovation and creativity. This, of course, to lead to an increase in satisfied citizens (public) or increase profit streams (private). It must, however, be managed effectively in order to yield the most benefits.

REFERENCES:

dictionary.com. (2011). Diversity . Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diversity

Gardenswartz and Rowe, . (2009). Diversity:dimensions. Retrieved from http://www.univie.ac.at/diversity/dimensions.html

Individualism vs Collectivism

The scope of public administration is as broad as the outer space is vast. In public administration we find many concepts that are utilized to make decisions that benefit the well-being of the nation and its citizens. These concepts are normally schools of thought that follow a belief or practice usually backed by some form of scientific or empirical data. The two beliefs I will be discussing, although not explicitly structured as what the forefathers implemented can be seen in many facets of public administration today. Individualism and collectivism are as much opposites as the north and south poles, but they are commonly mentioned together when I watch CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC. Let us delve into these concepts a little deeper and attempt to uncover a relationship.

Individualism can be defined as a moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses “the moral worth of the individual” (no author, 2011). It could also be interpreted as social theory that advocates the liberty, rights, and/or independent action of the individual (no author, 2009). Followers in this school of thought commonly are uninterested in external interference or opposition, choosing to value independence and self-reliance. In a political fashion, individualism can be dissected into two views (among many!). These two views are liberalism and anarchism, the more popular being the former.

Collectivism can be described as any philosophic, political, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes “the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals (no author, 2011). One could also define collectivism as a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution (no author, 2010). Followers of this school of thought place the needs of the whole above the sum of its parts. Examples of collectivism, to some degree of course, can be viewed today in socialism and communism.

To compare and contrast, I will quote from an article written by David McKalip. Activists of collectivism, in its most extreme form of course, seek to control every aspect of the lives of everyone. Individualists only wish to win control over the degree of power possessed by government. Collectivism holds that all power and money will be put into the hands of a few elite people. Individualism holds that the individual is in charge of his/her life (McKalip, 2010). There are also differences in morality. According to objectivsm101.com, collectivism destroys proper moral judgment by attributing value choices to the group as opposed to the person making the choice. On the contrary, individualism can be viewed as the proper approach to this morality lapse since the individual, and not the group, gets the credit or blame (no author, 2005).

Clearly, there is a bit of a yin and yang relationship between collectivism and individualism. Collectivism and individualism are truly each other’s opposite. They could even be categorized as arch enemies.

References:

no author. (2011). Individualism. Retrieved

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism

no author. (2009). Individualism. Retrieved

from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/individualism

no author. (2011). Collectivism. Retrieved

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

no author. (2010). Collectivism. Retrieved

from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collectivism

McKalip, D. (2010, April 22). The 100

years war: collectivism vs. individualism. Retrieved from http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=795

no author. (2005). Individualism vs. collectivism. Retrieved from

http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture39.shtml

Task Coordination

Task coordination can be defined as synchronized duties performed harmoniously across the spread of an organization. Task coordination is an integral component of task management in any organization that is targeted to provide effective problem solving solutions through aligning current activities of employees with planned ones with purpose to harmonize and unify all employees’ efforts into a single stream for attaining common goals (none cited, 2004). Examples include all reps at a call center conforming to a set method of assisting customers or employees at the social security office maneuvering citizens through the process of recovering lost cards. What is needed to make task coordination successful?
Effective communication is paramount to task coordination. Effective communication is a two-way process – sending the right message, which is also being correctly received and understood by the other person (s) (none cited 2008). Clear and concise directions are necessary to carry out a set of directions across the span of major organizations. It needs to clearly spell out expectations as well as how to achieve success in the given task. The internet, intranet, & extranet can be used to communicate important updates or changes via emails, memos, instant messages, or video conferences.
Information systems also assist in the coordination of tasks. Information systems are any combination of information technology and people’s activities using that technology to support operations, management (none cited, 2011). Using information systems not only increases efficiency, but it also assists in cost savings ( in terms of private sector). With the use of information systems, tasks can be executed expeditiously. Changes that may have taken a few days via mail can now be delivered in seconds. Another bonus of information systems is that it allows the administrator to follow-up on issued tasks quickly.
There are many more ways to dissect task coordination, but these two stuck out in terms of the level of their importance. Administrators should seek to perfect techniques that enable them to facilitate task coordination in an expeditious manner in order to become successful.
References:
none cited, (2004). Task coordinator: aligning tasks with plans. Retrieved from http://www.vip-qualitysoft.com/articles/task-coordinator-aligning-tasks-with-plans/
none cited, (2008). Effective communication. Retrieved from http://www.effective-communication.net/
none cited, (2011). Information system. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_system