Collaborative Public Administration Management - Term Paper Example

Word count 260 Collaborative Public Administration Management Collaboration is a form of strategic alliance between organizations. It involves two or more organizations working together to produce better and more appreciable services that give the public more in value than what is produced if an organization acted alone (Imperial, 2004). In Public administration context, it is described by O’Tool (1997) as a strategic alliance between public, private, and nonprofit sectors in ways that ensures comparative sharing and distribution of risk and power, formed with goals tailored towards increasing the size and visibility of program accomplishments, support for project, and to raise capital to improve feasibleness, speed and effectiveness. Donahue (1989) construed it as a kind of grant and contract agreement between public, private and (or) nonprofit sectors where funds are allocated by the public sector to private, or nonprofit sectors for service delivery. In Wright’s (2000) perspective, it is an intergovernmental alliance formed to enhance better coordination between government arms or (and) government agencies. Historically, collaboration have always been a basic component of democratic government and inter-sector arrangement but more recent considerations arising from governments failure, scarcity of resources, globalization, performance driven management, citizens’ need for better public service delivery systems, to mention a few, have combined to spotlight its importance in public administration (Koliba, Meek and Zia, 2010). a) Public Administration Hierarchies Koliba, Meek and Zia (2010) characterized hierarchy in relation to the “command and Control” structure of bureaucracies, a graded organization with several interlocking levels of power and responsibilities. In a hierarchy, duties are divided according to the degree of authority and the responsibility attached to position occupied in the administrative setting, (Koliba, Meek and Zia, 2010; Gladden, 1953) the goal being to create an environment where individuals, working together in groups can accomplish set goals with great competency (Koontz and Weihrich, 1990). In public administration, this basic function is in reality executed by administrators who have to carry out the managerial functions of planning, organizing, leading and controlling. The administrators, by virtue of their positions at the top of the hierarchy, have powers, ferreted out as administrative authority, and presented as a form of supervisor-subordinate ties (Koliba, Meek, and Zia, 2010). In this context therefore, management is considered the development of bureaucracy that derive its relevance from the need for strategic planning, coordination, directing and controlling of large and complex decision making process basically for the acquisition of administrative competence and effectiveness in public administration setting, the objective being to make organizational set goals and targets achievable. The basic responsibilities of a manager in a public administration hierarchy boil down to performing these basic functions including planning, organizing, leading and controlling for the effective management of organizational resources for the good of the overall goal of the organization. It is effective in this regard only with the use certain basic social norms, and maybe, internal regulations, including deference and submission to those in position of authority. These fundamental social norms and internal regulations are the very foundation of the “Command and Control” structure of a public administration hierarchy (Koliba, Meek and Zia, 2010). The accountability mechanism and performance measurement system put in place are effective as long as there are individuals assigned with the responsibility of determining measures and mechanisms, collecting and analyzing data, and pushing the burden or transaction cost to the appropriate office (Koliba, Meek and Zia, 2010), and also, as long as the individuals do their jobs. The public administration hierarchy manager, considering the responsibility of position held, must therefore possess four basic skills, if the hierarchy must be effective in accomplishing its organizational goals. These skills are pre-determined by the policy level under which a public administrator has to operate in the hierarchy (Gladden, 1953). Gladden concludes that the technical, administrative, executive, and political skills of public administration manager play very important roles in molding policy for the good of the organization (1953) b) Public administration Network Are networks to be viewed in relation to their horizontal ties? Or should they be viewed in terms of their horizontal and vertical ties? Kolabi, Meek, and Zia (2010) argue, that networks must of necessity, be viewed from the vertical, horizontal and competitive ties within them. Agranoff and McGuire in the 2003 case study of local community economic development networks conclude that networks are to be treated as consisting of both horizontal and vertical relationships. Koppenjan and klijn (2004) in their study of literatures on network management also draw the same conclusion. How then can a public administration network manager effectively work across vertical and horizontal ties, considering the cross-sector actors involved in any given network? Kettl (2006) described such cross-sector relationship between public, private and nonprofit sectors in terms of boundary blurring. Peltzman (1976) depicted it as instances of regulatory capture and more recently as a form of re-regulation or nationalization (Koliba, Meek and Zia, 2010). However, the implication of it has been described as a kind of trade-off between market and democracy (Stone, 2002). Moe (1982) describe it as a trade-off between government and business (Moe, 1982). Horne, Van Slyke, and Johnson (2006) referred to it as a give and take between public funding and charitable giving. This then raises the question of public and democratic accountability as the relationship between the sectoral goals and the role, resources, and influence non-public sectors bring to the network would need to be properly understood (Kolabi, Meek, and Zia, 2010) especially by public administration networks managers. Provan, Fish, and Sydow (2007) observed that the multiplexity of ties, which exist between network actors, give a level of stability to the relationship between them as it can supply a level of sustainability to the connection between an organization and its linkage partner even if one type of link is broken. It is therefore imperative on the part of the public administration network manager to understand the ideas of exchange theories as espoused by Rhodes (2007), the core of which recognizes the interdependent nature of the relationships between partners in a complex network. The network manager must be able to measure in relative terms the resources each network actor brings to the network, the rules of operation, and the process of exchange between organizations (Rhodes, 1981; 1999). He must have strong oversight in order to predict unexpected but disastrous turn of events and take necessary action in time instead of having to confront crises he has not adequately predicted. Only competitors, who are compatible, should be included in the network, and the goals of each partner clearly defined. In order to improve the efficiency of network, partners do not need to be loaded down with excessive compliance regulations. Mandell (1990) concludes that an effective network management relies on the ability of members to influence others in both horizontal and hierarchical level of the network. What this means is that, the role of the public administrator is to structured and be shaped by the interdependence nature of the relationships. The ambiguity and conditions of the relationships, and the goals the governance network seeks to accomplish are also factors that can both mold and be shaped by the network manager (Mandel, 1990), trust, useful, not only as a catalyst, but as a means of, perhaps, cutting cost of transaction (Thompson, 2003). Who then would be held accountable should the network somehow fail to achieve some or all of its set goals? Koliba, Meek, and Zia (2010,) argue that the network-wide goals of the network could be used as effective regulating mechanisms since the goals would most likely be tied to the functions and structures operating at a network-wide level. Caver and Scheier (1978) identified how this can be accomplished using feedbacks, which gives a clear description of the interaction between all the variables operating in the network. Katz and Kahn conclude that feedback can be a tool by which activities within the network can be regulated. Miller (1955) takes it even further asserting that the discontinuing of a system negative feedback could well lead to the vanishing of the steady state of the network, the disappearance of its boundary and the eventual death of the system. Koliba, Meek, and Zia (2010) make it even clearer, arguing that accountability structure operate in most administrative setting mainly as negative feedback loops because it helps govern the system dynamics. The accountability mechanism of a network therefore is a process of giving and receiving feedback as a way of rendering accounts to specific sections within the network, relying on certain definite standards and implicit norms (Koliba, Meek, and Zia, 2010). It can be concluded therefore, that a network’s accountability structure is shaped by the accountability mechanisms within the individual actors in the network (koliba, Meek, and Zia, 2010). The public administration network manager would be smart then to acknowledge that the conventional form of accountability within the public administration terrain would be insufficient for a governance structure that involves a host of diffused actors and methods (Scott, 2006). It is reasonable then accept Koliba, Meek, and Zia’s (2010) assertion that, those to whom account need to be rendered, are perhaps, in the best position to determine what can be perceived as a definite measurement of performance in the constituent processes of the network as it relates to the overall goal of the network (p.262). Yet, “..perception is itself guided by assumptions about what kind of information matters (Batteson, 1972)” (Koliba, Meek and Zia, 2010, p. 263). This, perhaps, is the clearest reason there must be a proper performance management system within a network, designed to create the means by which critical actors encode, interpreted, and refine information from both external surrounding and internal stakeholders into strategic goals, performance measures and targets (Donald Moynihan, 2008). The logic behind it, being that the use of performance information promote better decision making, which could lead to accountability, efficiency, and budgeting decision (Moynihan, 2008). For a governance network to be effective, public administration manager would need to; 1) Understand the characteristics of the network partners so they can effectively work across vertical and horizontal ties. 2) Understand the interdependence nature of relationships in the network 3) Build trust by recognizing that the constituent accountability structure in the network can shape the accountability mechanism of the network 4) Create a performance management system within the network For these to be possible, a communication channel that allows free flowing information, co-ordination of activities between network partners, trusting relationship would have to be established (Koliba, Meek, and Zia, 2010). To do this effectively, a network would need to have strong digital backbone, as there would need to be deep electronic connection to each partners in the network, and perhaps co-locate part of their operation for it to have a chance of successfully accomplishing its set goals (Koliba, Meek, and Zia, 2010). Technology is efficient because it allows the transfer and sharing of vital information between organizations in a timely manner. “Using technology to speed and improve product or service delivery enables employees of each of the organizations in the network to do more in less time” (Goldsmith & Eggers, 2004). Coordinating activities must also involve sharing information between partners in the network in real time using a form of electronic mechanism so their responses can be synchronized. c) Comparing and Contrasting the Network Governance and Hierarchy Management Skills The skills both managers of public administration network and hierarchy require are similar but different in their operation. Agranoff and McGuire (2001) drawing attention to managing network, contend that there are equivalents to traditional management procedures such as activation, framing, mobilizing and synthesizing, they conclude that decision making in governance network clearly depends on shared learning, social capital and negotiation. Administrative skills of the public hierarchy manager is based on the old conventional “command and control” management principle while a governance network manager requires such administrative skills that equip him for the challenges of working across both vertical and horizontal ties. In network governance, the political skills of the manager of the network are harnessed essentially for the fostering of allegiance between the diverse sectors involved in the network and its set goals. In hierarchy, political skills are needed for consolidating power. d) Summary The conclusion therefore contends, that the modern challenges of public administration demand special skills in governance network considering, that public service can no longer be executed by public administrators working through the conventional command structure of government bureaucracies. Bibliography Goldsmith, Stephen, & Eggers, William. 2004. Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector. Washington, D.C.: Brookings. Koliba, C., Meek, J. W. & Zia, A. 2010. Governance Networks in Public Administration and Public Policy. New York: CRC Press. Mandel, M.P. (E.d.). 2001. Getting results through collaboration: network and network structures for public and policy management. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Sullivan, H. 2002. Working across boundaries: Collaboration in public services. Gordonsville, VA. Trofing, Jacob. n.d. European Political Science - Retrieved from http://www.palgrave- journals.com/eps/journal/v4/n3/abs/2210031a.html Stephen Goldsmith and William Eggers (2004).  Governing by Network:  The New Shape of The Public Sector (Washington, D.C.: Brookings). Edgar Norman Gladden. 1953. Essentials of Public administration. University of California Staple Press. (London) Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire (2003). Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Moynihan, Donald P. 2008. The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Provan, K. G., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. 2007. Interorganisational Networks at the Network level: A Review of the Empirical Literature on Whole Networks. Journal of Management. Heinz Weihrich, Harold Koontz. 1990. Essentials of Management. McGraw-Hill College Read More