Resource Management in Education and the Public Sector - Example

Resource Management in Education and the Public Sector Student Name: Institution: Date: Introduction A number of issues related to public officials being involved in unethical behaviors have raised global concern. As a result, much attention has been given on public sector institutions to encourage them strengthen their ethics and professionalism, transparency and accountability as well as exercise a high level of integrity as the best way to ensure that public resources are protected as well as to enhance the performance of public sectors (Sakr Ashour, 2004). For that matter, concepts of accountability and transparency, ethics, integrity and professionalism are discussed based on how public services are delivered. It would be important to discuss the various practices and behaviors that undermine ethical manner in which public servants are required to exercise their duties. Special emphasis is put on cases of human resource mismanagements, conflict of interest as well as measures that can be taken so as to curb such malpractices. Definition of concepts Ethics and Professionalism, Public Accountability, Audits and Performance-based Indicators Based in this context of public resource management and professionalism, ethics can be defined as a set of moral standards that guide people in differentiating between rightful and wrong actions. In this case, ethical issues such as professional competence, independence, integrity and objectivity are analyzed. Public accountability refers to being ready to account for any action committed during the practice of public service delivery, in particular those actions that would directly affect the general public. However, it should be noted that being responsible in the attempt to exercise public accountability not only means accepting the mistakes but also total surrender of oneself to any issued raised for public scrutiny (UNDESA, 2000). Audits are performance evaluations which can be carried out in form of the financial statements audit. It is important to note that administrative framework and the existing cultural environment have a great influence on the task of public sector auditing. This implies that the nature of performance audit which refers to independent assessment of an economy and individual performance depends on a specific environment where it is evaluated from. Performance-based indicators can be defined as monitoring activities in an organization to evaluate the services offered. It involves critical evaluation of relationships between government and non-government bodies outside a given agency. Due to global concern for the governments to more responsive, economical and accountable in the use of public resources, it can be argued that performance measurement and evaluation is directed in the public interest (Kaul, 1997). Professionalism refers to the overall value that defines all the core values that guide the delivery of public services. Such values include transparency, impartiality, loyalty, diligence, neutrality, punctuality and effectiveness. However, these values may be practiced in specific public services of specific countries (UNDESA, 2000). This provides the view that the professionalism of public service promotes the idea those individuals who are recruited in the public sectors must be introduced to the shared values as well as be trained on the relevant professionalism skills to execute their official duties. Therefore, the rationale behind the notion of professionalism requires public servants to exercise the virtues of neutrality, fairness, competent, impartiality in order to serve the entire public interest. Appraisal of Ethical issues in relation to the Public Service delivery and Professionalism Over time, cases of ethics and unethical behaviors in regard to public service delivery have been much attention particularly within the public sector domain. It is important to point out that the changing roles of public administration have become progressively visible due to the existence of various media. Today, public management themes such as citizenship, ethics and democracy, ethics and administration as well as virtues, ethics and public interest have continuously raised global concerns (Pratchett, 1999). Therefore, it is the theme of public interest that creates the rationale for discussing the aspects of public accountability, audits and the performance-based indicators as globally practiced in respect to public resource management. The issue of ethic of public service and professionalism has become an important area of debate because of the increase awareness of unethical and unprofessional behaviors practiced by a majority of the public servants. Such misconducts proves to be detrimental both to the public trust and the global concern of inappropriate allocation of various public resources dominates the inefficient delivery of public services (Pratchett, 1999). It is relevant to mention that this global concern of public service delivery and professionalism is an ideal theme of public discussion because it helps to raise the public awareness. The study is relevant to the managements of public service institutions that need to focus on how to foster quality public service delivery in order to enhance their public sector professionalism. In regard to the subject of public interest, being independent can be considered as one of the ethical issues that can be used as performance-based indicators on public servants. Being independent implies that a person can think on his or her own without necessarily seeking the opinion of other people. However, most of the public servants are not independent thinkers, rendering the public service sectors to be criticized by other media. This clearly shows the rationale for using independence of thinking as a key indicator for determining whether or not the public servants really deserve the positions held. Professional competence has also been considered as a performance-based indicator on public servants because employees’ behaviors at workplaces are undergoing carefully scrutiny. This suggests that public duties and responsibilities must be evaluated to determine if they are in the public interest. Since competency is associated with proper behaviors in the execution of tasks of a public servant, it is an appropriate performance-based indicator to track the performance of individuals who work for public sectors (Mulgan, 1997). Objectivity and integrity are ethical issues that affect the professionalism of public service because they determine the performance of actions of people involved in public service delivery. Based on this values attached to these performance-based indicators, it can be argued that personal interests must be totally eliminated from the service of delivered to the public for it makes no sense to view a person as being objective in the presence of conflict of interest. In this respect, therefore, it is relevant to argue that performance audit as well as public accountability does not undermine the ethics and professionalism but instead plays an integral role in controlling the actions of people entrusted with the duties of public administration. By being objective in decision-making, public servants will work to benefit the public interest rather than focusing on their own motives. This can only be achieved through auditing and accountability measures where an individual would be required to provide explanations for their wrong behaviors. As a result, the authority concerned would be able to take the necessary measures based on disciplinary acts the correct the unethical behaviors. On the other hand, the issue of integrity has been given attention by governments where ethics and anti-corruption bodies have been established to control cases of corruption among the public administrators. Such audits and accountability measures are being successfully implemented based on the manner in which government policies reacted to by different countries (Wanna, O'Faircheallough & Weller, 1999). Pratchett (1999) examined that a concern on the need to develop ground rules specifically for the public servants to guide them in their day-to-day activities has been considered a perennial theme within the public sector. A common consensus has been reached regarding the importance having reformed public sector institutions that foster ethical behaviors, transparency and accountability, integrity and professionalism because they are crucial to discouraging corruption, promoting public sector performance and protecting the misuse of public resources (Sakr, Ashour, 2004). This clearly indicates that public sector is a continued changing environment where the aspect of leadership, socio-political as well as environmental influences is key factors that affect these public transformations. It can be argued that the importance of communicating ethics and the related values required in public service delivery cannot be ignored. Therefore, public servants should be introduced to a common frame of legal reference to let them know the exact principles and standards required of them in handling ethical issues whilst delivering public services. In this regard, therefore, the availability of measures such as public accountability, audits and the performance-based indicators need to be discussed critically. New public management strategies are emphasizing on public servants being efficient and flexible to the public interest. This stresses on the need to exercise greater discipline as well as being more economical in the use of public resources. Public institutions should ensure that they foster an environment of accountability and transparency that can provide higher-quality public services through decentralization and devolution of powers (Bradley & Parker, 2006). In Australian public sector, it can be noted that Ministerial Heads are held accountable to the elected Parliamentary Ministers. In addition, Auditors-General ensures accountability of the public sector services and performance to make the government more transparent. Therefore, through government’s careful attention on how to efficiently and effectively manage their public sectors and accountability, it is relevant to mention that adoption of a radically financial reporting approach in the sector would provide useful information. In this case, governmental accountability has been focused on the idea that citizens have the right to information and to right to access the openly declared facts that can result in public debate by citizens themselves as well as their elected representatives (Davis, Weller & Lewis, 1989). Public servants are expected to have inward accountability to their own professional ethics. Thus, are required to act in a more responsible and conscious manner where in extreme situations should make their own judgments against the authority of those who are superior to them. It is quite clear that such actions as related to professional judgment require effective use new administrative practices. The notion of accountability seems to have developed into a framework of reconciliation to seek for more consultation and the public participation as a way to efficient and effective management of public services (Chapman, 2000). Accountability in the public sector realm seems to take place on the basis of superior and subordinate. In this case, the former must be having an interest in making effective evaluation and promoting the quality of performance provided by his or her subordinate. This implies that the superior will make use of the outcome obtained from such audits and performance appraisals to base on his or her managerial controls, issuing directions to individuals held accountable. Mulgan (1997) noted that accountability to enhance the accessibility of information concerning the performance as well as controlled resources may be well-discharged by providing the accurate financial information. The main doctrinal components of the new public management paradigm include hand-on type of professional management, greater discipline and emphasis on parsimony in the use of public resources as well as explicit standards and performance appraisal (Vigoda-Gadot & Meiri, 2008). Hughes (1998) articulated on the basis of this new pragmatism the four major themes as management which signifies results and managerial responsibilities. Hughes argued that management should be considered the higher function in order of responsibility than administration that merely involves following instructions. Additionally, Hughes viewed economic principles adopted from the public choice theory, competition and the theory of principal-agent as basic ideas that can be applied in public management. Lastly, modern theories and practices of management such as flexible staffing and organization programs would enhance public management because quality service delivery is vital to citizens. It is notable that a number of theoretical underpinnings of the new public management are related to economic theories, for instance, public choice or agency theory. Such theories depend heavily on market forces, emphasize on the utilization of contractual arrangements that results in improved economic and societal results (Hughes, 1998). Common Practices and Behaviors that undermine ethics and professionalism, Integrity, Accountability and Transparency It cannot be doubted that the practices and behaviors undermining ethical and professionalism of public services are many. However, it is important to emphasize that corruption, human resource mismanagement and the conflict of interest are commonly practiced in public sectors. Corruption destabilizes the economic and political progress of developing countries. For example, cases of bribery, illegal deals and the conflict of interest causes heavy costs such economies. This makes it difficult to implement development policies, and thus undermining the public trust particularly within the public institutions (Chapman, 2000). Therefore, it can be argued that corruption is serious unethical practices that need to be given close attention because it undermines the trust as well as the confidence of public servants. Public institutions should focus on building sustainable reputation of integrity. Basically, the costs of corruption are incurred as a result of lower invests or exacerbated poverty, resource misallocation, reduced competition and efficiency as well as poor administration. It can be argued that the major root cause of corruption are attributed to poor designs of public institutions and the dynamically changing laws and regulations, lack of transparency and accountability, and lowly paid salaries in public sectors. Human resource malpractices caused by inappropriate public service policies and practices negatively affect the ethical behaviors and professionalism, transparency and accountability of public servants. Sakr Ashour (2004) noted that failing to enforce ethical or integrity policies within the overall HRM strategy causes the mismanagement of human resources. This implies that absence of code of ethics to provide guides and standards of HRM programs signifies lack of accountability. As a measure to identify and reduce HRM malpractices, public sectors must develop a monitoring and evaluation system to ensure that their environment fosters values such as integrity, ethics and professionalism, transparency and accountability. Conflict of interest, for example, personal interest of a public servant may be in conflict with his or her assigned duties. In this case, the private interest of such an employee would influence him or her to perform in a manner that cannot be in the interest of the public institution (Sakr Ashour, 2004). Therefore, the issue of conflicts of interest reduces the public trust in the integrity and accountability of public servants. It is true that public service and professionalism have been undermined. The Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness of Public Accountability, Audits and Performance-based Indicators From the evidences collected about the roles played by public accountability, audits and performance-based indicators to address the already discussed ethical issues. It can be alleged that these tools maximize the delivery of public services by encouraging ethical behaviors and professionalism efficiency and are cost-effective. It should be noted that public accountability, audits and performance-based indicators are expected to be transparent and this requires the public servants to effectively and efficiently use their powers whilst carrying out their duties and responsibilities (Sakr Ashour, 2004). This means that public servants must focus on the optimal interests of the general public in order to secure their positions. Therefore, the three tools greatly influence ethical behaviors and professionalism, and thus maximizing the efficiency of public services. As noted earlier on, performance audit should be considered as an independent evaluation of how the economy is performing as well as the efficiency of an individual being audited. Governments spend on bodies such as legislative committees and judiciary control that use the performance indicators to measure accountability within their public sectors as an attempt to evaluate their economies (Weller, 1991). Although such measures increase their public budget expenditures, it cannot be compared to the costs incurred on problems associated with the failure of public servants to account for their misconducts. Conclusion Based on the above discussions, it can be concluded that public accountability, audits as well as performance-based indicators do not actually undermine the ethics of public service delivery and professionalism. Such tools instead promote and strengthen the need for public servants to work in the interest of the public by ensuring that facts they provide, mechanisms and processes used are more transparent particularly to the general public. Therefore, it is necessary to point out that public accountability, audits and performance-based indicators are important tools for maximizing efficiency and they are cost-effective in use of public service delivery whilst promoting ethical behaviors and professionalism. It is worthy to mention that the three tools offer a fundamental framework through which to implement effective and efficient public sectors that win the confidence and respect the interest of the public. Public duties and responsibilities must be evaluated to determine whether if they are in the public interest. However, it is important to note that the nature of performance audit which refers to independent assessment of an economy and individual performance depends on a specific environment where it is evaluated from. It is quite clear that the importance of communicating ethics and the related values as expected in public service delivery cannot be overstated. References Bradley, L., & Parker, R. (2006). Do Australian public sector employees have the type of culture they want in the era of new public management? (pp. 89-99). Australian Journal of Public Administration, 65(1).Blackwell Publishers. Chapman, R. (2000). “Is Accountability: Westminster the Problem?” Australian Journal of Public Administration, 59(4), 116-21. Davis, G., Weller, P., & Lewis, C. (1989). Corporate management: Background and dilemmas (pp. 1–16). Corporate Management in Australian Government. Sydney: Macmillan. Hughes, O. (1998). Public Service Management and Administration: An introduction (Chapters 2 and 3). Melbourne: Macmillan. Kaul, Mohan (1997) ‘The New Public Administration: management Advancements in government.’ Public Administration and Development, 17 (1), 13-26. Mulgan, R, (1997). The Processes of Public Accountability, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 56(1), 25-36. Pratchett, L. (1999). The New Ethics of Modern Public Service. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 1(3), 366 - 376. Sakr Ashour, A. (2004). Transparency and Accountability within the Public Sector in the Arab Region. UNDESA RAB/01/006. UNDESA (2000). Professionalism and Ethics in the Public Service: Issues and practices in selected regions. ST/ESA/PAD/SER.E/5 New York. Vigoda-Gadot, E. and Meiri, S. (2008). ‘New Public Management Values and Person-Organization Fit: The socio-psychological methods and empirical assessment among the public sector personnel’. Public Administration, 86(1), 111-131. Weller, P. (1991). Financial management reforms in government. Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, 67 (November), 9–17. Wanna, J., O'Faircheallough, C., & Weller, P. (1999). Devolution of power and delivery. Public Sector Management in Australia, (2nd ed.). Sydney: Macmillan. Read More