Austrias Public Management Reforms - Case Study Example

Austria’s Public Management Reforms Name: Institution: Austria’s Public Management Reforms Introduction Public reforms in Austria have changed the face of the public sector and the relationship between the public and private sector since the 1980s. The public sector in the country has been undergoing vigorous long chain of talks, decisions, and actions to attain the desired changes. As such, the country has been witnessing comprehensive yet systematic reforms creating new public management models. Reforms in Australia have been an ongoing thing for the last three decades with the systems demonstrating managerial capacities by learning from experience and undertaking renewals. Therefore, this essay looks at reforms in the new public management, giving attention to reforms in performance management, and highlighting the different lessons drawn from experiences of using different reform instruments. Dimensions Taken in Reform Governance According to Meyer and Hammerschmid (2006), different levels of governance can be differentiated, right from the different individual agency to the public service sector. Taking the public sector system within the level of government as the initial starting point it helps differentiate several arenas of reforms under a comprehensive approach to change. As such, public management reform covers areas of financial management, human resource management, and performance management/ accountability. The previous four decades, different Australian administrations and the public sector have been called upon to look at the challenges brought about by the rapidly changing world. This has been accomplished by reviewing the current strategies and programs and establishing innovative ones that have better and improved approaches to public management. Public service leaders involved in this initiative of change are required to learn from previous initiatives when coming up with the new reform propositions. This is in line with works of previous scholars who suggested that the key to successful reform is to understand how the previous concepts of management were shaped (Wright, 1994). In order to access measurable outcomes in public management changes various reform policies such as the Public Service Reform Act 1884 has to be understood. Acts in Support of Public Reforms Public Service Reform Act 1884 The majority of the measures outlined in the 1983 White Paper were registered in the Public Service Reform Act, 1984. The reforms have been defined to be the widest ranging reforms undertaken in the Australian public services since its establishment. The established principles include among others legislative and administrative arrangements to be initiated, which included the political appointment of ministerial advisors, to reinforce the control held by ministers in departmental administration. Senior Executive service was to be established via appointments emanating from competitions open to both the public and public servants, the vacancies being advertised publicly. Equitable and efficient administration was to be established under Public Service Reform Act, 1884, with a statutory requirement established whereby all departments were required to develop and maintain an equal employment opportunity program. The state also demand democracy introduction with the development and implementation of actions in the different departments that touched on the organization of work including financial and human resources among others. Finally yet importantly, both permanent and part-time employment was to enjoy benefits and an introduction of management improvement activities introduced (Broadbentand Guthrie, 1992). The Public Service Act 1999 The public service act, 1999 was initiated as a replacement of the old legislative framework allowing a new establishment and management of the Australian Public Service (APS). The act ensures an improvement in the balance between accountability and devolved responsibility allowing a maximization of the effectiveness of the APS. In addition, the policies in the act are met to advance the superiority of people organization in the public service. As such, the act was expected to produce a more effective, efficient, and ethical utilization of resources, provide timely advice to the government in the formulation of policies and program. Finally, the act would ensure a fair, effective, impartial, and a civil services is offered to all Australians (Rouban, 1999). Improving Staff Performance According to the Merit Protection Act 1984, the focus of this Act was to improve staff performance, because getting the most out of people is crucial to improving public sector performance. By 1990, the middle management development initiative linked productivity, remuneration, and increased training. According to the policy, different departments were called for to establish plans for the middle management development before they could be awarded any government funding. The most vocal and important trait of the program was the development of a management course that would offer training for people management and other changing responsibilities as experienced by managers (Flynn, 1995). The use of performance based payment systems. The reasoning behind performance-based pay was that public servants would be motivated to be more productive if what they earned was linked to their performance. The system was later to be under-pinned by performance appraisal, aiming to connect distinct performance to communal goals, improving channels of communication among the senior officers and their managers, in the process identifying the training needs of these managers. In addition, the system ensures the process used to appraise the senior managers would improve the level of feedback concerning their performance (Lodge and Hood, 2012). Performance Management Systems Performance management has gone through several phases playing a vital role in acquiring developments in the public sector. Previous through the reformation process, performance management has been developed through a federal approach that featured the branch of finance. Later on, the reform process was founded on consequences/ an output outline instead of official requirement and emphasizing on performance evidence. As such, the different departments were to identify their outcomes and they were to be held accountable for them. Various heads of departments were assigned responsibilities and they were to be accountable for the performance (Hofstede, 1981). This new system improved the information base, allowing better incentives, better accuracy in ensuring public value, and linking output to outcomes. The finance department was able to make evaluations of the system effectiveness and its level of responsiveness in meeting government needs, in the process enhancing its role and capacity to oversight financial management and information. Over the years, performance has been reinforced also extended especially where previously there existed limitations to performance (Lodge and Hood, 2012). Centralization and Decentralization There have been significant changes in the equilibrium between centralization and decentralization of various managerial duties particularly the human resources organization function. Previously, there had been reiterated the necessity for centralization of the public sector employment. Nevertheless, in the quest to attain a more open and combined public service, the centre responsible for the public sector employment was called for decentralization from the centre. This lead to the decentralization of the of human resources management that had played over the previous year’s leading to the eradication of the Public Service Board and an introduction of the Public Service Act in the nineties (Rouban, 1999). The incoming commission, that is, a Public Service Commission had a rather partial role accountable for the developing of the senior policy making provision and training. This involved acting as a consulting body and advising the government on various issues related to public sector change. In addition, the body was also responsible for various human resources systems competence arrangement duties such as, recruiting, elevation, dismissals, flexibility, and withdrawal issues in the public service. The 1999 Public Service Act instead empowered departmental heads empowering them over staff (Lodge and Hood, 2012). Similar reforms occurred in the financial departments allowing the departmental leaders and their high-ranking directors were issued full authorities in unification of their organizations financial, performances, accountability, overseeing menace supervision priorities especially those accruing to recruitments, preparation and mentorship, and leadership. In the end, departmental heads would be granted the powers to determine pay and conditions within their departments. Nevertheless, elements of centralization did remained in events relating to human resources management, the role of the public service commission was to promote and review various policies proposed by the APS in regards to employment and other practices in the public sector. This role extended to quality assurance evaluating individuals’ management, mentorship and profession development, and governance. It is significant to note that there have been additional changes especially recentralization in the financial management function. These changes have been in response to new openings to exploit economies of scale under centralized purchasing (Flynn, 1995). Performance based Human Resource Management In Australia, the main role mandate of the human resource management in the public service sector is to ensure an improvement of staff performances. The human resources achieve this faction by establishing better labour and management relationship, ensuring the training of staff, and establishing a performance based payment. As such, laws have been established and passed ensuring the enrolment of new public sector employees is purely based on merit and performance. In addition, staff from all levels of the public sector is provided with training, whereby, in the past managers in the middle management development bearing substantial people management and improving the performance of senior managers (Shim, 2001). Nevertheless, despite efforts from the public sector and workers union, there is still an argument that despite the introduction of performance based pay; there is bias or victimization in implementing the system. This is in the sense that those allocate work in the high profile areas they will always receive the highest rating. While those working in the lower areas such as corporate services will most likely receive merely satisfactory ratings. Therefore, more emphasis has to be laid on the quality of performance feedback issued by the supervising teams (Shim, 2001). Accountability Since the initiation of reforms in public management, a big part has been played by the introduction of accountability in various agencies. This has been made possible by strengthening the annual report process of the various departments involved in the public services management. In addition, individual public servants have been encouraged to practice a high level of accountability. Changes brought about by accountability mainly affected areas of cooperate and program organization, budgetary, and progress assessment. All changes were geared to ensure an improvement in tactical planned and policy preparation and guarantee an efficient use of capitals. These goals were to be reached via a better planning and goal framing, improved management, and a continued measure of results and outcomes (Reichard, 1998). As part of the driving force of the public service act, 1999, was to strengthen the public management including its human capacity through strengthening the accountability of the government. As a result, the public would easily access online data that they could use in grading the performance of the public sector. The accountability extends to checking improved performances for secretaries, involving feedback from higher levels of stakeholders and subordinates. Thus, feedback will cover all the roles including departmental management, achievements, and accessing the quality of their policy advice. Nevertheless, a few questions have risen concerning accountability especially in instances where new collaboration has to be handled. That is, there are questions on effective reporting whereby a number of departments and agencies collaborate under horizontal governance, and especially so where there is a third party involved. In handling collaborations, accountability has been put-up on a reform agenda whereby it is redefining relationships where the arrangement will extend beyond the set parameters for satisfying compliance (Gray and Jenkins, 1995). The external bodies overseeing accountability such as the audit and administrative appeal are operational outside the direct control of the government. As such, they are able to offer important public judgement concerning department governance. Therefore, as part of the duty to oversee accountability, regular financial statements are produced, audits, and other guidelines that highlight what happens in departments. The mechanisms of accountability scrutiny employed by the government can be compared with those used in business through the market and corporate regulator. In so doing, the importance of accountability is reinforced despite it manifesting differently across public and private sectors. Reflecting on the Reforms Different expansions have been pivotal in altering the situation that the Australian Public Service purposes. Among these developments, include improvements in civic participation due increased educational levels in the country that has intern contributed to the people expecting more from their public service. A continued increase in economic pressure and a need to offer better output with few resources has also played a part in creating change in the environment of public service (Torres and Pina, 2002). Reforms should be classified as the distribution of a support able modification over a period. The change should cover changing human capacities and administrative changes, ensuring the right balance is being achieved between the system and the people it is serving. The reforms are supposed to ensure a balance is achieved between the present needs and those of the future including the centralization and decentralization of functions. In addition, effective reform changes call for behavioural changes. Thus, good communication must be established to communicate the nature of change and what is expected in the reform, making sure the accountability and incentive structures are in line with the objective of the reform (De Boer, Enders, and Schimank, 2007). Conclusion The public management reforms that have been under in Australia since the 1980s indicate the desire held by the Australian Government to offer better services to its people owing to the changing global essentials. The highly functional public sector organizations with better and reformed organization of the human capital and structural arrangement are continuously benefiting better utilization of resources and achieving a balance between centralization and decentralization of the different functions to allow accountability. In so doing, the different departments of public service are able to serve the government and the public in a well-organized and principled manner. References Broadbent, J., & Guthrie, J. (1992). Changes in the public sector: A review of recent “alternative” accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 5(2). De Boer, H., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2007). On the way towards new public management? The governance of university systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany (pp. 137-152). Springer Netherlands. Flynn, N. (1995). The future of public sector management: Are there some lessons from Europe? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 8(4), 59-67. Gray, A., & Jenkins, B. (1995). From public administration to public management: reassessing a revolution? Public administration, 73(1), 75-99. Hofstede, G. (1981). Management control of public and not-for-profit activities.Accounting, Organizations and Society, 6(3), 193-211. Lodge, M., & Hood, C. (2012). Into an age of multiple austerities? Public management and public service bargains across OECD countries. Governance, 25(1), 79-101. Meyer, R. E., & Hammerschmid, G. (2006). Changing institutional logics and executive identities a managerial challenge to public administration in Austria.American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 1000-1014. Reichard, C. (1998). The impact of performance management on transparency and accountability in the public sector. Ethics and accountability in a context of governance and new public management, 7, 123-137. Rouban, L. (Ed.). (1999). Citizens and the new governance: beyond new public management (Vol. 3). IOS Press. Shim, D. S. (2001). Recent human resources developments in OECD member countries. Public Personnel Management, 30(3), 323. Torres, L., & Pina, V. (2002). Delivering Public Services—Mechanisms and Consequences: Changes in Public Service Delivery in the EU Countries. Public money and management, 22(4), 41-48. Wright, V. (1994). Reshaping the state: the implications for public administration. West European Politics, 17(3), 102-137. Read More