How Congress Affects Todays Public Manager - Research Paper Example

How Congress Affects Today’s Public Manager 21 June The public manager is one of the most crucial instruments of legislative implementation; reform movements are captured by the members of this profession and so are objectives and ideas envisaged by the legislature. Congress can usurp or enhance a public manager’s power by determining how agencies are structured, paid and assessed. Public managers often reflect the public sector sentiments of the day, such as diversity or public participation; this is evident through a series of legislations like the Civil Service Reform Act. Outline How Congress Affects Today’s Public Manager 1 Name 1 Abstract 2 Outline 2 Introduction 3 How Congress affects the public manager today 4 Evidence 5 Conclusion 8 References 9 Introduction US central government has been smaller than most other governments; however, this does not in any way mean that they are still not strongly associated with Congress. Congress’ objectives are largely represented by policies and legislation, but most of them are implemented by the public sector where the public manager belongs. Therefore, members of this provision are implementers of decisions or ideas envisioned by law makers; they are instruments of reform and progress in the sector. The legislative arm of the government has the desire to make public administration systems more effective and efficient. It is for this reason that it may introduce policies and laws designed to achieve this goal. Currently, new public reform, based on neoliberalism or market economies has been implemented in the US and several other European countries with varied reactions. In the US, managers in the public sector are expected to cut down on bureaucratic coordination and instead adopt market competition or coordination as they carry out their duties. Most elected representatives aim at minimizing government expenditure, and a number of them believe that the reform movement of the day (neoliberalism) can help them achieve this. Therefore, Congress’s convictions and aims affect how public managers carry out their work as they are expected to share these objectives, as well. How Congress affects the public manager today Provision of quality public services is seen as something desirable by the legislative arm and the public manager’s job is how these abstract ideas can be actualized (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2000). In essence, some advocates in the legislature believe that reduction in government growth is a positive attribute as this allows it to work within its financial limits. Public managers are in charge of actual spending within various federal agencies, so they are expected to make reasonable discretions when doing their work. The neoliberal reform movement currently implies a move towards privatization rather than too much dependence on government institutions. Public managers will be affected by these issues because they will have less work to do when most things have been effectively transferred to the private sector (Redmond, 2005). The use of information technology in the provision of public sector is something that many legislators want to see in federal agencies. Therefore, public managers have the duty to make distribution and production of services more technology-friendly; this process involves frequent training as well as other career development activities. Nowadays, the legislative body also expects intergovernmental cooperation in public administration, so public managers ought to go out of their way to work with other nations. Congress can be at the forefront of organizational restructuring in public institutions when it passes policies to this effect, such as, through hierarchy reduction or increments of delegation. Public managers are expected to respond to this component by reducing their own hierarchies within each federal institute as well as redefining their role. Sometimes the Senate and House of representatives may want to see more output orientation in federal departments, so it is incumbent upon these professionals to carry out performance agreements or do something like performance-related pay (Milward, 1994). Budgetary reforms have been the order of the day for legislative representatives, so a number of policies have been passed to this effect. The main characteristic of such reform is to emulate financial instruments from the private sector and implement them as they carry out their duties. Public managers of today must familiarize themselves with issues concerning balance sheets or cost accounting as these are critical parts of service delivery in the private sector. Quality management took over the management school in the business world during the 90s; likewise, the public manager is also expected to carry some of the managerial changes. Some aspects like electronic transfer ensure that service quality is heightened, so this should be practiced by public managers. Several countries around the world that focus on quality management in the public sector also have a strong customer orientation as they seek to heighten legitimacy in service provision. Evidence Congress has a profound influence on the extent to which public managers can run the affairs of their agencies, departments, or offices since the overall management system chosen will depend on the legislative arm of government. The Civil Service Reform Act is one of the federal reform initiatives that affects today’s public manager since it contains elements concerning how public institutions should be run. The National Performance Review is also another alteration that would not have come into play were it not for Congress as it determined the level of discretion that managers can have in carrying out performance appraisals (Ban, 1998). Whatever the legislature has introduced has had the ability to usurp or enhance managerial power for persons in the profession under analysis, and continues to do so today. Congress’ decisions in the past now determine the amount of power that public managers hold over payroll systems as they can alter settings and change the number of workers within one payroll system. Generally, the legislative arm of government has been at the forefront of determining how much flexibility public managers can have in carrying out their roles. Regardless of some progressive efforts, the country’s legislative body also has the capacity to reinforce traditional values within the same profession. If Congress passes ambiguous reform acts, it is likely that managers may have no choice but to stick with traditional values. One such value is process in public management as this has often been seen as a source of consistency and accountability within federal agencies. When the legislative body expects public managers to be more flexible in carrying out their responsibilities, they must spell out specifically how to do this or face the risk of maintaining the status quo by relying on process. Senators and the House of representatives have the ability to eliminate certain mindsets if they effectively identify them and outlaw them (Lapsley, 2009). One may understand the last statement by considering the inconsistencies between uniformity in the public system and altering the job evaluation system so as to give managers more flexibility. Additionally, it is relatively difficult for public managers to become more responsive when the measurement of performance has become more rigid as explained by parliament. It is sometimes necessary for the legislature to let certain Acts expire in order for them to pursue a certain agenda; failure to do so could simply lead to a stalemate in carrying out the public manager’s job. The nature of workers that public managers can recruit is also determined by activities in the two legislative houses; matters of equality and diversity are particularly crucial. In an effort to respect people’s right to work without discrimination, Congress has introduced a number of laws that require public managers to pay members of both genders equal pay. This explains why pay differentials among male and female federal employees is relatively minimal; this continues to take place due to public managers’ obligation to abide by the law (Stilwell, 2009). Likewise, members of the profession under analysis must abide by diversity requirements that have been instated by the legislature. They have to create a diversity plan in response to equality values propagated by the law-making arm of government; this implies accommodating people of various ethnicities as well as various genders. Persons in leadership positions within federal organizations must also reflect the nation’s diversity, so public managers aspiring for these positions can take advantage of programs. Those already in positions of power need to ensure that others who aspire to replace them have equal opportunities to do so. Such requirements would be inapplicable if Congress had not taken the time to create these legal obligations and checks. Persons with disabilities are already accommodated by some of the legislations made by the legislative body as explicated in the 1998 US Rehabilitation Act. This law requires public managers to include persons with disabilities as well as the elderly when using information technology. People with visual impairments are especially affected by this, so their welfare is being protected by Congress. The way in which public managers interact with other indirect stakeholders of the public management system is also affected by Congress tremendously. One example of a law that was passed to this effect was the 2001 Electronic Government Act, which was meant to increase the level of citizen participation in government (Daniels, 2001). The public was expected to contribute towards legislations on e-government, and they did their best to do so; their efforts culminated in implementation of online transactions among various government agencies (Chavan & Stein, 2001). Therefore, public managers’ interaction with the public largely depends on recommendations and initiatives started by Congress. Public managers must respect the public’s right to access information as this has also been outlined in another Act passed by Congress- the E government Act. Since democracy is a crucial part of the American value system, this legislative body felt that it was critical to give individuals an opportunity to know about their government. This would allow them to access services more effectively and actually be aware of the resources that they can tap into or avoid altogether. Overall, the public manager is a tool for implementation of new initiatives/ reforms made by the legislature and they have the responibsility to abide by what has been decided. Conclusion In the public sector today, Congress has several goals and ambitions such as increasing the quality of service provision as well as reduction of expenditure. Public managers have been at the forefront of achievement of these objectives because they run the affairs of federal agencies. Congress may this be regarded as the visionary while public managers should be treated as implementers. When they have a desire to increase efficiency in budget allocation, policies on resource allocation will be passed. Public managers are also subject to the restructuring objectives of Congress. They may also have social ambitions like improvement of diversity, and will require public managers to handle it.. Evidence of this can be seen through the Electronic Government Act that has caused greater citizen participation, and has compelled public managers to interact more with the public. Issues concerning diversity and how managers carry out their responsibilities are also crucial in the modern public manager’s profession. However, when ambiguous laws are passed that conflict with certain traditional values, then public managers may not realize the goals envisaged by Congress. References Ban, C. (1998). The national performance review as implicit evaluation of CSRA. In J. Pfiffner and D. Brook, eds., The Future of Merit. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center. Chavan, A. & Stein, C. (2001). A web for everyone: is your website accessible to people with disabilities? Planning, 67(7): 10-11. Daniels, M. (2001). Programs put citizens in charge. PA Times, 24(8), 1-2. Lapsley, I. (2009). New public management: the cruellest invention of the human spirit? Abacus, 45, (1), l-21. Milward, B. (1994). Implications of contracting out. In P. Ingraham and B. Romzek,eds., New paradigms for government, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 41-62. Pollitt, C. & Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Redmond, W. H. (2005). A framework for the analysis of stability and change in formal institutions. Journal of Economic Issues, 39, (3), 665-681. Stilwell, F. (2009). The new right were wrong. Social Alternatives, 28(1), 7-11 Read More