Sir_Excellence

Public organizations and private, for-profit companies both exist to provide goods and services. However, there is a fundamental difference in the reason—or motivation—for the work done in public organizations as compared to private, for-profit ones. In private, for-profit companies, one of the fundamental goals of work is to create profits for the owners of the organization. For a private, for-profit company to survive, its workers should generate more income for their company than the company spends for production. If not, investors withdraw their funds from the company, and it ceases to exist.

In private, for-profit companies, the profit motive becomes the bottom line. This bottom line tends to pervade the culture of private businesses. Since making money is essential, it becomes both the goal of workers and the tool used to motivate workers to seek the goal.

The public sector is different. Most public organizations (including government and nonprofit agencies) do not sell a product to customers. Instead, public sector agencies provide public goods—goods that are not adequately provided by private markets. For example, states created public schools because many parents could not afford to send their children to private schools. Uneducated children were unprepared for anything other than simple work and, largely for that reason, often struggled to find employment that would allow them to be healthy members of their communities. Therefore, a collective choice was made to provide public education for all children. Public schools provide a service without charging students or their parents directly, thus removing the profit motive.

Instead of focusing on private financial gain, public organizations focus on serving target populations, such as school children, unemployed workers, mentally ill individuals, and crime victims. Being able to help others is rewarding for most people. Given the service focus of most agencies, the public sector is attractive to people who enjoy serving others. Therefore, public workers (leaders and employees) are more likely to be motivated by public service.

We have learned about public organizations, particularly public bureaucracies.  But, what is the public interest?

Much as with the goals of equity, efficiency, liberty, and security, people disagree about what is in the public interest. Is it in the public interest, for example, to provide water to the residents of a small community in the Arizona desert? Yes, certainly if you are one of the residents of that small community. But, what if you are among the many people in Nevada who are facing severe water shortages within the next several years? Is providing water to Arizonans in the public interest of the residents of Reno, Nevada? They might say, “No, we need that water!” So, which is it?

That is where the four policy-making goals come into play again. What is the “best,” or “right,” balance between equity, efficiency, liberty, and security? Determining that balance is one of the functions of the political system. It is also one of the functions of public administrators.

In public administrative practice, we try to bring some rationality to the political process. We attempt to untangle the administrative from the political. By now, you may have come to the conclusion that such efforts are neither possible, nor really even desirable. Rather, we should be trying to integrate the administrative functions of public administration practice with the results of the political process.  In other words, what we try to do is to implement the political goals through the application of administrative practices and processes. Where public administrators can go wrong is if they focus on only some of the goals at the expense of other goals.

The policy goals, as we have discussed before, are efficiency, equity, liberty, and security. They are just another way of framing or restating the public interest. It is the responsibility of public administrators to find ways to maximize the realization of all four goals—a difficult and important challenge.

How do we balance the four goals? If we use bureaucratic systems to serve all clients coming to us for service in exactly the same way, regardless of their individual needs, we will not achieve equity. Equity requires an individual focus, not the same approach.

Key factors in the practice of public administration are the sources and distribution of power. As discussed in previous weeks, understanding the relationship between politics and administration is essential to understanding the public administrative practice.

Power comes from various sources. What are some of these sources?

Power comes from clients and constituent groups; the legislative, judicial, and executive branches; and from the general public. In short, power comes from several sources within and external to a bureaucracy or other public organization.  Power can also come from the workers, whether desired by the leadership or not.  Let us discuss some of the ways in which employees can have a share of the power within an organization.

The subsystems of public workers are created by the following three factors:

• Organizational structure: The hierarchical structure of bureaucracies, which includes top executives, who are often political appointees, professional careerists, and rank-and-file workers.
• Public workers: A second factor that creates distinct subgroups is the presence of nonunion civil service workers and unionized public employees—a segment of the rank-and-file workers.
• Private contractors: A growing pool of "private" employees doing public work is created by a growing movement toward contracting for government services.

Each of the bureaucratic subsystems exists within most public agencies, although the relative importance of each subsystem will vary among agencies and at different levels of the government.

Changes in leadership are among the many factors that determine the distribution of power in public organizations. Briefly, in addition to leadership, an effective organization needs adequate resources, a well-defined mission, and good relations with public stakeholders

Education is one of many areas where Republicans and Democrats differ in their policy preferences. A change in president or governor also produces a change in party leadership, executive leadership, key stakeholder groups, and the missions of many agencies, which can change substantially. These changes can challenge the effectiveness of government agencies.

While leadership change makes bureaucratic effectiveness more difficult to achieve, it is important to remember that the alternative—unchanging leadership—requires either that we all agree on our policy preferences or that someone dictatorially imposes a stable policy. For most US citizens, the goal of efficient organizations is secondary to the more important values of liberty and equity.

Power can also, if it is desired by leadership, come from the workers.

The intrinsic value of public service has been identified as a strength of public agencies. Public administrators can enhance that strength by identifying the nonmonetary values that an agency's workers provide and regularly drawing workers' and the public's attention to the individual and social values of public work.

An example of a nonmonetary value is the provision of health care to former soldiers by the Veteran's Association (VA). Doctors, nurses, clerical staff, and maintenance workers collaborate to provide the VA's health services. Unfortunately, many studies have revealed that the VA is understaffed, which can make work in VA facilities stressful. One way to reduce stress is to celebrate the service that workers provide. If the VA invited former patients back to talk about how the health care they received had improved their lives, the patients' stories about the value of the services would reward the VA staff for their efforts.

In any given agency, there will be a unique mix of worker motivations. Administrators should not assume that workers automatically self-identify nonmonetary values in their work. Public service value should be a conscious concern for administrators, and the topic should be discussed explicitly in public agencies.

Beyond the topic of motivation, workers in an agency and the people an agency serves have important knowledge.

Public administrators who want to use the information that workers and target populations have can do so by including both groups in agency management—a practice referred to as democratic public administration. We'll turn to that topic next after reviewing some of the potential motivating factors that can exist for employees.

So far, we have considered some elements that public administrators should consider as they provide leadership for their organizations. Now we will move to a general leadership issue—the concept of democratic public administration.

We call our government a democracy. However, there are grounds to question this description. Many people do not vote. Of the people who vote, many confess that they do not feel well-informed about the candidates or issues. Additionally, the vast majority of people do not engage in other forms of political participation. Few people make significant donations to political candidates. Few people write or call their representatives. Fewer still go to legislative or administrative hearings where policies are developed.