Public Administration - Concepts and Cases - Essay Example

?Question Based on your reading of the Wilson article and “The Blast in Centralia No 5”, how would you justify the need for a strong and effectivepublic administrative system in society? The examples given in the Wilson article, and in the case study, show that there are different ways of approaching the public administration task. Some organizations, like the state authorities in the Centralia No 5 Case study, take great pride in organizing good systems and controls. They appoint good, committed staff members who carefully carry out all the specified tasks and make timely and appropriate recommendations. These are all good things but they do not necessarily bring about good results. The case study shows that the administrators and the systems need to be geared to solving real problems, and not just sustaining the system itself. There is no point in having an excellent health and safety system, for example, if it the accidents still happen and people still lose their lives. Another key role of public administration is to decide what needs to be done, and plan for that. Wilson’s comparison of the French and German armies at the start of World War 2 shows that it is possible to have excellent organizational systems, with everything working to plan, and yet, in the case of the French, have a plan that is not suited to the particular problems facing the organization. This means that public administration which is strong is not enough. It has to be facing the right direction and aiming for the right goals so that it can be effective at bringing about the desired outcomes. In some public organizations there are very large resources devoted to the operation and so it is crucial that the senior teams think through very carefully what the priorities are, and what kind of change needs to be faced in the future. Simply maintaining the procedures that have always worked in the past is not enough. This may have been enough before, but because there are many variables in society, and because things change unexpectedly, an effective public administration needs to be flexible and able to take on board new ideas all the time. The example of the German army, and of some school head teachers, shows that highly committed individuals who can manage teams are an essential part of an effective administration. There has to be an ability to keep to an overall plan, but at the same time some small group independent thinking and action is absolutely vital. Public administration is often criticized because it is too slow moving, and over cautious. Society needs an administration that can respond quickly to crisis, and can break through all the red tape to take decisive action when there is a real threat. In the Centralia case study it is clear that the administrators all kept within their own narrow boundaries, and no-one stepped out to demand immediate and decisive action. Society needs this kind of leadership in public administration to identify crisis areas and respond immediately. Public administration has a very important role in society because it adds a professional dimension to community activities. Someone has to have a view of the big picture, and someone has to ensure that all the different branches of activity in society meet together for the good of all. I think Wilson’s description of the German army is a good one, because it shows that discipline and order can be matched with innovation and independent thinking. If everything was left to private individuals and companies, then there would soon be chaos and exploitation of the weakest members of society. Public administration sets the standard for fairness and consistency, and it is the job of public administration managers to keep a good balance between following the rules and driving through change where it is needed. Question 2. On the basis of Long’s essay on administrative power and your analysis of “The Columbia Accident” what specific factors can you identify that can strengthen or detract from an organization’s power? Are there specific ways that administrators protect or enhance their power positions? If so, how? Use the case to illustrate your views and cite example(s) from your experience. An organization has power from a number of sources, and power is passed up and down the ranks in day to day business, as well as coming in from the sides via public or private linkages. One of the factors that detracted from NASA’s power to handle the complexity and risks of space flight is a conflict between the decline in funding sources on the one hand and the continuing and even increasing political objectives on the other hand. An organization can use its resources to do its business effectively, so long as it can control some of the key variables like costs, income and objectives. In the case of the Columbia Accident it is clear that some individuals believed that they could carry the organization beyond the point where adequate resources were in place. Savings were made, cuts were introduced, and the effects were minimized or ignored. The stakes were so high, that no-one dared to stop everything and state clearly that the issue with foam pieces coming apart would be a mission-critical issue. Another factor that was important in this accident is that administrative power often lies in the ability to reveal or conceal knowledge. It is clear in the Columbia Accident that individuals in NASA knew very well that there were significant risks to the integrity of the mission, but many of them kept this information to themselves. Perhaps they feared that if they spoke up, the whole space shuttle side of NASA would be shut down, and they would lose power, position and maybe even their job and income. In my own experience I have seen a very senior financial manager asking heads of department again and again for key information, and not being given the figures. Even though the financial manager was senior to the heads of the departments, he could not obtain what he needed to complete the strategic plan correctly. When the figures finally did become available, they were much worse than anyone had imagined, and this caused major problems for the organization, and the loss of many jobs. I think that the motivation to protect the reputation of an individual or a group can sometimes be harmful to the wellbeing of the whole organization. Theoretical power is not enough. Managers need to have the actual power to obtain the information they require, and if there are blocks in the way, such un-co-operative colleagues, then a new system is needed to free up the blocks, or new staff are needed, who are willing to work for the corporate good, even more than the good of themselves or their immediate team. One way that administrators enhance their power is playing off one stakeholder against another, for example in school administration there is often a difference between three major groups: staff, students and parents. An administrator can use the opinion of one group against the others, and can switch policies from favouring one to favouring the other when a different outcome is desired. This is a common tactic, but it can be dangerous because it sets up divisions in the organization. In the Columbia accident the power of the technical staff to warn of dangers was set aside in favour of the need to secure financial backing for the future. Short and long term goals were therefore confused, and this caused disastrous consequences. Good administrators can see both short and long term goals, and they can persuade all stakeholders of the correct path ahead, but this takes a great deal of effort and skill as well as very experience and committed senior managers. References Stillman, R. (2010) Public Administration: Concepts and Cases. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage. Read More