The Attributes of Public Sector Management, Organizational Politics - Essay Example

?PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT Introduction In present times, cultural change has become the latest trend for public service reform, with governments all around adopting ‘culture’ for transformation of public service organizations. Reforms have resulted in generation of not only performance- oriented evaluation but also customer- based objectives (Ashworth, Boyne and Entwistle 2010, p. 98). Organizational culture is primarily a set of shared basic assumptions, and is usually multidimensional. Different levels of this ‘culture’ comprise those aspects or elements that are valued by an organization. External adaptations as well as internal integration are two chief features of organizational culture. Development of ‘strong’ culture within an organization has become increasingly popular among governments across the world. This paper highlights the attributes of public sector management, organizational politics and strategic management with respect to organizational culture. Furthermore, this paper also examines the theory of organizational change as well as the aspects that bring about effective and enduring change in public sector organizations. Public Sector Management Private and public are the two sectors of economy. While the former deals with private and non- governmental association, the latter refers to government and a mixture of various departments and associations. From managerial point of view, the private sector and the public sector have numerous differences between them. In the twenty- first century, the public sector has experienced a huge growth and development. The traditional model for public sector management was supported bureaucratic practices. Even- distribution of labor, hierarchy, merit- based employment decision, impersonal work relationships are a few characteristics of this traditional model. However, in modern times, the public sector has been facing challenges as far as management is concerned. This has been the reason for incompetence of public sector when it comes to delivery of public services. Some of the chief reasons why public sector is lagging behind in Australia are- failure of traditional bureaucratic management in a market in relation to non- excludability and non- rival consumption, information imperfections, uneven distribution of resource and wealth, etc. (Aulich, Halligan and Nutley 2001, p. 1- 4) As a matter of fact, the public sector has experienced several economic restructuring. This change was brought about by transformation of administration into management. That is to say, the traditional model that had long been used in public sector got replaced by effective and modernized approach. According to new model, rational economic forces became the chief determinant behind institutional decision- making, dynamics and politics. Much of these reforms were due to bringing in of choice, competition and above all market orientation. All these changes have resulted in remodeling of delivery structure, thus including “contract agencies, board, voluntary agencies, and the residual public sector”. Therefore, management of public sector has evolved to adopt the entrepreneurial and discretionary style. (Bishop, et al. 2003, p. 4- 5) The public sector has certain characteristic features. Firstly, unlike the private sector, the public sector is led by persons elected by common vote, by following the democratic principles. Secondly, public sector organizations are generally multifunctional. This generates scope for political intervention. Thirdly, though the decision making process is thoroughly influenced by cultural perspective, but is mostly unaffected by shifting demands, and hence becomes more vulnerable to criticisms. At the same time public sector suffers from conflicting goals, income and profit distribution, etc. (Christensen et. al. 2007, p. 6- 10) Organizational Culture The term ‘organizational culture’ refers to those informal norms and values that become associated with regular business activities. Organizational values are adopted in institutionalized organizations for acquiring an added flexibility for coping up with market demands. In public sector, organizational culture could be adopted by making the laws, rules, ethics, work schedule and organizational charts easy so that they not only become explicit but also flexible so that they could be communicated without hazards. The physical symbols of such culture are invariably related with respective tasks of public sector. In cases where multiple tasks are involved, more complex cultural profiles are maintained. Under such circumstances, it is important that social variables are defined clearly, for it helps in “pattern management”. Public sector organizations adopt organizational culture to reduce level of uncertainty and the wave off the effects generated from absence of conflict. Organizational decisions are affected by the culture it adopts for it raises inter- perspective problems. However, every time the any public sector organization opts for economic remodeling, a conflict arises within organization domain due to resultant change of organizational culture. (Christensen 2007, p. 38- 44) Theories of Organizational Change in Public Sector Organizations It has been observed through studies that organizational change is brought about both by the managerial body was well as strong changes within the organization. A set of eight effective implementation forces of such changes are usually adopted for maintaining a sound process of exchange with the customers as well as the stakeholders. Even the public sector needs to implement successful programs from time to time to build a support- for- change. (Fernandez and Rainey 2006, p. 168) Firstly, every public sector organization needs to ensure their need. That is to say, the managers of public sector need to verify and communicate the required changes. Planned changes must be brought only after having a compelling vision and conducting necessary research. The vision must comprise those changes and modes of communication which will be easy for that respective organization to adopt. In public sector, this stage is usually managed through inspecting and learning by local governmental bodies. However, often the leaders take undue advantage of mandates, political power and opportunities and other peripheral influences as well. (Fernandez and Rainey 2006, p. 169) Secondly, framing of a definite course of action is of absolute importance. Planned strategic course results in effective implementation of organizational change. But even mere planning is not enough. Organizations must have a set of objectives about their respective task and general public service. Clear directives and relevant activities, specificity of strategy and a firm theoretical base are crucial for public sector organizations, as because, such measures ensure that the policies implemented, do correspond to organizational requirements, and also avoid inconsistent or incoherent changes. (Fernandez and Rainey 2006, p. 169) Thirdly, construction of internal support to sustain as well as to overcome resistance needs to be ensured to bring about effective organization change. Theories of organizational change maintain that, if required, political procedure must be included by public sector leaders, with the sole objective of maintaining a balanced relationship between the employees and the stakeholders. Just because the proposed policies are misinterpreted or unjustified, often the employees resist changes, resulting in generation crisis. Thus, organizational change in public sectors is effected by ethical participation, threats, compulsion, securities against personal loss and psychological support. (Fernandez and Rainey 2006, p. 170) Fourthly, as because the leaders in public sector enterprises are chosen by common vote, it becomes their duty to extend support and commitment to any change. In present times, public sectors have adopted the tool of idea champion, an individual in charge of maintaining momentum and commitment. Support and commitment from civil servants and political executives ensures that the differences in coordination are sorted out and disparate actors are negotiated. This is helpful for imparting legitimacy to changes in public sector as well as to make apt distribution of resources. This task often faces multiple challenges since the executives are frequently regulated as per the changes in government agencies. (Fernandez and Rainey 2006, p. 171) Fifthly, external support received in the form of political overseers or sovereigns help in organizational reforms of public sector, in a more quick and cost- effective way. Key external stakeholders too, exert a great level of influence upon organizational changes in public sector. The interest groups are sorted out first, followed by analysis of cost dissatisfaction and criticism. (Fernandez and Rainey 2006, p. 171) Sixthly, irrespective of nature and expansion, public sector needs to allocate supporting resources to effect a change. A change is generally brought for increased trade- off activities. Redeployment, redirection, strategy formulation, development of new processes, restructuring, reorganization, funding and innovative measures are all elements of organizational resource. Thus, apart from these, public sector organizations require administrative and technical capacity to implement organizational change, as because multiple- functions requires ample changes thereby making resource allocation and availability a common problem in public sectors. (Fernandez and Rainey 2006, p. 172) Seventhly, public sector organizations often seek help from developmental models to make such changes enduring and effective. Modification of general norms, incorporation of new policies, management of human resources, collection and tacking of data, and procedures for the same are included in institutionalized changes. However, opinions are divided regarding institutionalized change. While a section of public organizations support use of institutionalized and embed changes in a rapid pace, others opt for introducing a small scale to acquire knowledge about effectiveness and relevance of policy before building the momentum. (Fernandez and Rainey 2006, p. 172- 173) Lastly, managerial bench of public organizations require pursuing an integrative and persuasive approach. This could be achieved by bringing about systematic change as public sectors usually deal with multiple changes within subsystems and decision- making elements. But while bringing about such changes, structure, nature of functioning as well as interconnections between the subsystems must be taken into consideration. (Fernandez and Rainey 2006, p. 173) Organizational politics Organizational politics has a huge role to play in managerial course, especially in decision making. Politics, within organization refers to “domain of power in action”. Thus, organizational politics is the potential force which is exerted over organizational systems. Organizational politics was introduced to meet the different criteria of rationality, as well as the problems generated from unstructured decisions of management bench. Political influence shapes up interpretation of policies or change and hence solutions are determined accordingly. Differences in interests and opinions often occur regarding resources, funding, objectives and responsibilities. Also within an organization, conflict occurs due to clash of interests between line and staff mangers. In public sector organizations this conflict is commonly observed between bureaucracy and minister’s advisors, over power and authority. Moreover, influential mangers indulge in lobbying, to seek more power and position. Organizational politics is one of the chief reasons behind competition, larger political struggles within organization and aspiration for dominance. Thus, one could trace a whole political process underneath decision making process or implementation of organizational change. (Poad 9125: Organizational politics, culture and managements, p. 1- 2) While often organizational politics is accused of creating unnecessary complications, it is beneficial for securing resources and makes sustainable usage of the same. Organizational politics contribute in progress of ideas, achievement of organizational goals and enhancement of performances. For these reasons, in present times, numerous public sector organizations are supporting organizational politics as a realistic and constructive approach to accomplish set objectives and corporate benefits. Thus, major decision or other significant changes in public sector are influenced by political motives. (Buchanan and Badham 2008, p. 3- 8) Administrative Culture in Australian Public Service (APS) Surveys conducted by departments of APS have revealed that APS does not have specific organizational goals for individual government agencies. Even if some goals and objectives exist, they are limited to subordinate levels only. Implementation of highly qualitative objectives has been a problem for APS. Lack of monitoring, feedback, fewer mechanisms, integration, consistency, inflexibility and slow decision making process, inadequate procedural requirements account for some other limitations of APS. APS is highly centralized. This helps it in keeping a delegation with its subordinates, though instances of under- delegation has been found with Department of Transport. Public servants of APS could be challenged for accountability issues. APS’s decision making process aims both at procedural orientation and risk avoidance. Measuring success of public sector is a difficult task. Thus APS measures organizational success in terms of managerial success. (Matheson 1997, p. 39- 45) Strategy management of organizations Selection of the most suitable perspective for any organization is not an easy task. Four models- political model, bureaucratic model, rational choice model and Decision process or organized anarchies are mostly used for organizational decision making. In public sectors, whenever there arises some disagreement in interests or objectives, usually a common aspect is reached (Understanding the Role of Power in Decision Making, p. 29- 30). Success of strategic decisions in organizations is measured by their outcome. Besides analysis understanding the practical limitation is essential for successful implementation of strategic decisions. If the mangers possess a clear idea about the procedures involved behind taking each decision, only then the decision would become credible and more convincing. This requires both political and dialectical approach, though strategies often change incrementally or fundamentally. (Process of Strategic Management, p. 182- 183) Conclusion Performance and organizational culture are interlinked. Factors related to theory of organizational change are interactive in nature, and hence are capable of having huge impact on organizational decision- making and subsequent implementation. All these are meant only for improving overall quality and efficiency of public sector organizations. Organizational culture is indispensible for maintaining a common unity and integrity not only among its employees but also among different organizational segments (Christensen and LEGreid 2013). Goals, scopes, resources and functioning nature of public sector differ from private sector. Besides achieving organizational objectives, governments are also responsible for looking after social welfare and keep to prevailing political ideologies. This makes overall management system, especially economic management in public sector a much more challenging task. (Parker and Bradley 2000, p. 137- 138) Organizational change could be brought out through several internal and external factors. These factors have their own impact on managerial measures in public sector. Organizational politics influences organizational environment through external compulsion. At present, it plays a supplementary role along with other managerial strategies. Management in public sector is also influenced by ‘organizational climate’ that is the superficial cultural attributes within an organization. References 1. Ashworth, E. R, Boyne, G. A and Entwistle 2010, T Public Service Improvement: Theories and Evidence, Oxford University Press, UK 2. Aulich, C, Halligan, J and Nutley, S 2001, Australian Handbook of Public Sector Management, Allen & Unwin, Australia 3. Bishop, P et. al 2003, Management, Organisation, and Ethics in the Public Sector, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., UK 4. Buchanan, D and Badham, R 2008, Power, Politics, and Organizational Change: Winning the Turf Game, SAGE, California 5. Christensen, T 2007, Organization Theory and the Public Sector: Instrument, Culture and Myth, Routledge, UK 6. Christensen, T and LEGreid, P 2013, The Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, UK 7. Christensen, T et. al. 2007, Organization Theory and the Public Sector: Instrument, Culture and Myth, Routledge, UK 8. Fernandez, S and Rainey, G. H 2006, Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public Sector, Public Administration Review, viewed 17 June, 2013 Read More