The New Public Management - Report Example

Running Head: IMPLICATIONS OF NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT Examine Critically the Implications Which New Public Management Has For the Relationship between Public Servants and the Public Interest [Writer’s Name] [Institution’s Name] Examine Critically the Implications Which New Public Management Has For the Relationship between Public Servants and the Public Interest Introduction The "new public management" view of modern government is that it should be mission-driven, decentralised, and entrepreneurial. The structural characteristic of this model is that, compared with the traditional government bureaucracy it should have a smaller policy core, overseeing a flatter, less hierarchical, more fragmented implementing periphery. This has been described as the 'hollowing out' of government (www.competition-regulation.org.uk). Defined in this manner, the New Public Management can be considered as an agreement among the public and their voted representatives as well as the public service. The public along with politicians require first-rate public services and enhanced performance via public sector organizations. To acquire it, they are ready to give public servants additional managerial independence, as well as the human and technological sources to fulfill their requirements. The public and politicians are ready to recompense strong performance, for instance by giving performance pay. The very last element of the New Public Management paradigm is a method of imposes this agreement. Suppose public servants do not enhance performance, politicians along with the public can begin competition in the public sector, or shift the responsibilities to the private sector. Generally, New Public Management is used to describe a management culture that emphasizes the centrality of the citizen or customer, as well as accountability for results. It also suggests structural or organizational choices that promote decentralized control through a wide variety of alternative service delivery mechanisms, including quasi-markets with public and private service providers competing for resources from policymakers and donors ( Pidd 2005l). NPM does not claim that government should stop performing certain tasks. (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPUBLICSECTORANDGOVERNANCE).Even though the New Public Management repeatedly related with this point of view of the policy, New Public Management is in no way based on if tasks ought to be taken or not. It is about getting things done better. Modifications in the organization and supervision of the public services signify an important difference from traditional public administration to fulfill the requirements of `new public management' (NPM).New public management’ consists of separate and new characteristics, and it has affected the health service as well in the public sector. Describing all the features of the new public management is complex. Different writers, see new public management’ differently like such at times NPM looks like a blank canvas on which you can draw and paint as you wish. As Ferlie et al (1996). Propose, the movement which has collectively formed the NPM trend have been contrasting, even opposing. Likewise, Dunleavy and Hood (1994) recognize the contentious nature of new public management, characterizing it as `a useful short-hand, a précis account of a method of changing public sector bodies'. The distinctive characteristics of NPM are considered contrast is made with previous models of public sector organization as well as management. The perfect type pre-NPM model of customary public administration was characterized as organization by means of hierarchical, rule-driven system of government. Hypothetically, the ‘public interest' was served via politically impartial, unspecified officer. In this model, policy formation--then exclusive province of the elected policy-maker--was clearly distinguished from policy implementation (Hughes 1994 p45). NPM in has exposed itself in its break from management via rule and set method. Defined disapprovingly, NPM can not be use for constellation of characteristics. Discussion Implications for Public Servants /Employees the Public Interest The employee and manger is held accountable (Hood 1991 p12). This establishes the principle of individual employee accountability. Public Sector Disaggregation This might consider particular type of the separation of employees that offer services in organization of quasi-markets. Increased competition of the employees in the public realm, regularly underpinned through the utilization of contract employees (Hood 1991 p18, Stewart and Walsh 1992 p512; Dunleavy and Hood 1994 p10; Ferlie et al. 1996 p55).Improved frugality in the utilization of public resources and more unease regarding the competence of employees of the public sector. Close consideration to the outcome of public sector activities. NPM constantly looks towards `outcome more then measures and towards improved efficiency. Concern for Performance and Quality of Work of the Employees This may result in a growing position for he employees of the public sector and may be utilized as indicators of quality of the performance they give. For instance public sector employees it might mean a better utilization of short-term contracts as well as performance-related pay for employees. New public management may also mange cultural change in organizations of the public sector domain, and enhances better services by their employees for their consumers. This cultural change also provides a challenge for the employees who are members of qualified groups of the public sector. Employee outcomes: Attitudes and Well-Being Studies have found that psychological health, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment are important employee-cantered variables in the course of organizational reforms (Yousef, 2000 p250), in NPM and is frequently utilized to predict job stress in NPM based organizations likewise, job satisfaction may play the role of being a security for the employees and may result in fulfilment of public interests (Warr, 1996 p44). Both psychological health and job satisfaction of employees may frequently be associated with related work conditions including demands of the job in a NPM work scenario (De Lange et al., 2005), discretion of the job and social support increase employee effectiveness in NPM systems which in turn fulfils the interest of the public . Nevertheless, in terms of evaluating the effect of new public management on employees may result in more employee outcomes as well as public interest. (Mikkelsen, Ogaard, & Landsbergis, 2005 p170). The turnover rate of the Employees can result in a huge cost to the organization, thus having a negative effect on the average annual salary of the employees (Cascio, 2000 p23). In terms of managerial efficacy, once the employee has resigned the manager cannot do anything regarding it. Consequently, new public management results in an employee outcome that can present more forewarning about turnover i.e., organizational commitment this may effect the interest of the public. Organizational commitment is usually considered as an attachment of employees to the place of work (Testa, 2001 p230) and, when contrasted with the most common attitudes of the employee, typically may be considered as the strongest relation with turnover (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990 p171). In general, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, as well as work stress of employees have always been related to organizations that have a NPM system. Nevertheless, they do have important distinctions with commitment frequently seen as a more constant and enduring attitude as compared to job satisfaction, even though both have an effect on performance. Job satisfaction and psychological health of employees of NPM. Hood explains several elements of NPM. The first most important for this paper, and gives the rational and practical links among broad policy changes and particular labour-management problems these problems are directly related to how much the NPM can fulfil the needs of the public. Management problems which are related to the workforce must be managed by means of developing an understanding among provider and producer, thus completely eliminating single-service employment practices of private-sector management that consist of a shift from careers, may put an end to non-monetary rewards for employees and tackle the double-imbalance issue of public-sector workers so that they can be better paid than the private-sector employees, whereas being paid less at higher posts ;even more control over resources may led to less job security as well as less employment in organizations based on NPM (Farnham and Horton 1993 p237). Competitive pressures and the trends prevailing in the market drive central the government try to eliminate the boundaries of the public-private. For instance, the new public management principle of making cost centres pay for centrally forced reformation resulted in manual job loss at North city, thus negatively effecting relations among unions and councillors. This principle is still not doubted by New Labour's 'best value' rule and modernization plan (Gill-McLure et al., 2003 p255). Even though a full management of the outcomes of best value for manual labour procedures in the interest of he public is outside the range of the political imperative of limiting producer interests as the most excellent way of improving competence and productivity (Entwistle & Laffin, 2005 p205). Therefore under best value, services that have previously lessened their productivity have, in spite of attaining high efficiency levels, had to carry on reorganization, outsourcing as well as externalizing with additional deskilling, loss of jobs and attrition of terms and conditions(Geddes, 2001 p500; Richardson et al., 2005 p725) thus resulting in a loss of interest of the public Public Employees Increase in Productivity The consequences of disciplining a labour force in accordance with the productivity ideal for the character work life quality of public servants has not been explored. The assumption of NPM is that greater autonomy, more teamwork, and accountability for results rather than process, will enhance the work life, prestige, and job satisfaction of public employees (Gore, 1993, pp. 101-144; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992, pp.250-279). According to Friedman (1999) and Sennett (1998), a lot of private sector employees in the New Capitalism have not gone through a positive experience, thus they feel as if they are lost and a drift without constant values and a feeling of belonging. What individual public servants experienced in the New Public Management? Has more independence, entrepreneurship, as well as teamwork been accomplished in public organizations regarding public interest, and, if it so then has these public employees gone through this sort of drift and confusion that Sennett describes? What does it indicate for public employees in relation to the interest of public interest to be closely controlled in accordance with the productivity model? Based on the literature along with ongoing research, we can predict that the finding will parallel among characteristics which were described by Sennett (1998) in the above paragraph in the milieu of the corporate world and up-and-coming environment of work life in public organizations. It may be anticipated that a growing sense of indifference as well as uncertainty amongst public employees, a loss of individuality experienced by public employees when it comes to their organizational groups, and a modification in the nature of control and authority in public organizations have definitely reduced the interest level of the public . The main argument is that NPM has produced harmful outcomes for workers of the public-sector, and as a result the nature of public administration itself has been permanently and negatively changed. First, in spite of its claim of permitting a “knowledge-based” workforce, the pursuit for improvement and effectiveness which is innate in the new public management system might as an alternative be leading to feelings of coldness between public employees, as a result of discrediting the individual knowledge and, thus, a reduction of collective intelligence present in the employees of public organizations which in turn results in a loss of interest of the public. Several scholars have discussed the historical, a theoretical nature of public administration generally (Schachter, 1997 p14), but under the current reform movement this declining value of knowledge, and its effect on the individual worker, has become even more alarming. It may result in a growing sense of detachment between public employees and their work, and in turn a weakening of the administrative core beneath our systems of governance. It is believed that such an infatuation with the new, reinforced by a primacy of technical reason, may be diminishing our capacity to adequately learn from the past or reflect critically on the present. Likewise, it can be expect that by giving less attention to the problems of productivity, technological capability, and procedural effectiveness, other kinds of knowledge may be excluded from public discussions (Blaug, 1999 p 89) thus increasing public interest. It can be expected to that, when this system is confronted with this reduction of knowledge, public employees will become more and more unconcerned regarding the practice of democratic governance. They have begun to feel that their principal contribution to the administrative functions of democracy lies less in informing the process through insight and substantive learning and more in punching the right buttons on their MIS interface. Given its move toward creating leaner, more efficient organizations, NPM may be producing a sense of confusion among public employees. The current emphasis on increasing productivity, which is seen as driving the high employment, low inflation economy, places a great amount of pressure on employees who remain after the downsizing. While the employees may go away, the amount of work remains the same or even increases, thus adding more responsibilities to existing jobs. Similarly, the drive toward greater flexibility, while commendable in its espoused theory of freeing individual actors from the confines of the traditional job description, has done away with important support systems for individual sense making this may be directly related to a reduction in public interest. Human actors, whereas maybe no longer restricted by means of the bureaucratic structures of the past, discover that they are reacting to the growing demands from this changed organization. This trend was experienced recently in the consulting effort with a human resource office of a large public-sector agency. The management of the office had implemented a variety of reform strategies in an attempt to optimize the performance of a limited number of individuals. Unfortunately, much of the actual work fell upon the clerical staff. One clerical worker indicated that in addition to doing the entire payroll for the organization, as well as several tasks relating to retirement benefits, she was the only person who knew how to print out address labels. Thus, requirements would continually come in from around the organization—through phone, memorandum and electronic mail and for various events like get-togethers. As she concluded, “I work for everybody.” But management, despite its reforms, maintained a more traditional approach to performance appraisal, which means that though the worker “works for everybody” and performs a variety of tasks, she still is held accountable only for her core responsibilities. Confusion over roles and responsibilities, compounded by “flexible” evaluation systems, prevents public employees from being able to adequately make sense of their organizational surroundings. As government managers continue to downsize their agencies and intensify their drive to optimize productivity, we anticipate that the workers themselves will be come in undated with an excessively broad range of tasks. While a certain level of role diversity in the workplace may be advisable, we believe the hyperactivity currently required of civil servants will have devastating effects on the quality of work life within public organizations. Over time, it is expected that the confusion will produce high levels of turnover and, as a result, it will lead to an even greater gap between workers and institutions of governance. As public employees experience a feeling of confusion as a result of the changing job responsibilities, this drastic organizational change required for as a component of new public management acts to alter their overall work setting, removing important institutional factors that allow them to assimilate in their organizational group. The result is a loss of identity on the part of the individual worker. Milward (1996) tackles particular characteristics of this trend in his concept of the void state, the basis being that management changes has resulted in a modification of the old systems of public organizations. However, his analysis remains on the institutional level and does not consider the impact of what may become of the public interest regarding in such a system. The recent move to reengineer public bureaucracies into flexible, streamlined organizations has effectively cast public employees adrift, leaving them searching for their organizational identities. In order to increase public interest keeping in mind the public servants a major organizational change plan caused by the management of a grant-providing organization, as an agent of the reengineering agency grant programs, reflects this development. The agency’s managers made a decision to merge its separate funding streams into a solitary pool of resources; an approach they thought may successfully support joint partnerships between the recipients of the grant. However, they determined that the change should not be incremental, but rather it should be implemented immediately for the next fiscal year, which at the time lay only six months away. The result of this change was an intense feeling of anxiety among most participants, with many questioning whether their organization would ever be the same. And, while the change in funding has achieved some success over time, ensuring success required considerable backtracking and learning by the grant provider to sort through the difficulties of the reengineering process. Due to the current reengineering trend in public administration, it can be anticipated that similar stories regarding public interest may come up in the future inquiry. However, it is important to begin to focus on the implications of such radical change on the sense of identity public employees attach to their organizational groups as well as the interest of the public. The essential transformations in public-sector agencies brought about as component of reform agendas might demolish vital social attributes of public agencies, thus deteriorating the sense of personal attachment which the individual workers have. It is expected that, due to this public employees will experience a loss of identity, by their very notions of self as well as their organizational community which may be lost due to this change process. Fourth, with its preference for less hierarchical, “team-based” organizations, NPM has changed our notions of power and control in public agencies. According to Barker (1993) Severe, bureaucratic management systems are should be substituted by means of a sharing of power which can be understood by concept of “concertive control” by public employees. Members of the new public agencies are expected to establish their own normative rules, which control “their actions more powerfully and completely than the former system” (Barker, 1993, p. 408). The procedure may start with an agreement on the organization’s values, after this it transforms, by means of group interaction, into a self rationalizing, domination of the peer-controlled system. A lot of public organizations have experimented, in a number of ways, with an approach which is team based team to management. The change usually is initiated at the top of the organizational structure, with those in power expressing their desire to facilitate broader cooperation among workers. Organizational values and productivity objectives keep on being imposed from the top; by means of teamwork this is considered a more suitable approach for implementation thus resulting in a strong relationship between the productivity of the employees and the interest of the public. In fact, in many cases the organizational elite actually will raise the performance standard, or encourage workers to do the same, given the “better way” of doing business. Team members, who have to confront the increased pressure, will accept and slowly strengthen the burden of these values on their fellow workers. The environment may then deteriorate to the point that the employees monitor every action of their cohorts to ensure that not a moment is wasted, nor a movement unjustified, toward the completion of the objectives. Consequently, it is important to emphasize that, while NPM has changed management systems from their traditional, bureaucratic forms to more of a “self-management” approach, the outcomes are not always favourable for public employees. Thus it can be expected that as the instruments of authority turn into peer- public employees who are highly oriented, will be required to respond to their supervisors but and over and over again, to their co-workers. Under the old bureaucratic system, employee commitment was often characterized by strong feelings of affiliation formed at the workplace (Balfour & Wechsler, 1996 p270; Romzek, 1989 p650) which at times increased more public interest. Under the new public management, employee relationship and public interest, which at times play the role of buffers among the individual and organizational demands, are being substituted by ubiquitous self-managing teams along with concretive control. On the other hand, while team-based reforms may distribute the mechanisms of control throughout the organization, thus they have done little to give public employees an equal say when it comes to decision-making process. Management has effectively changed its command structure to ensure more eyes on the individual worker, but its firm grasp on the prerogatives of power remain the same. The result, this is a new pattern of domination of the public employee which is related to public interest. Conclusion The "new public management" is a view of modern government; it has a lot of potential implication regarding relationship between public servants and the public interest. Conventional, administrative structures which are heavily loaded with rules may hamper innovation and suppress the professed “entrepreneurial spirit” of the employees working in government organizations. Due to this public sectors should change agenda which eliminates bureaucracy and gives more freedom to their employees thus increasing the interest of the public. References Balfour, D. L., & Wechsler, B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Antecedents and outcomes in public organizations. Public Productivity & Management Review, 19, 256–277. Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408–437. Blaug, R. (1999). Democracy, real and ideal: Discourse ethics and radical politics Albany, NY: SUNY Press. p89 Cascio, W. F. (2000). Costing human resources: The financial impact of behavior in organizations (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing p23 Dunleavy, P., and Hood, C (1994) From Old Public Administration to New Public Management in Public Money and Management 14, 3, pp 9-16 Entwistle, T. & M. Lafiin (2005) 'A prehistory of the best value regime'. Local Government Studies, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 205- 218. Farnham D. and Horton S. (1993) The new public service managerialism: an assessment. In Farnham D. and Horton S. (eds) Managing the new public services. Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 237-254. Ferlie E., Ashburner L., Fitzgerald L. and Pettigrew A. (1996) The new public management in action. Oxford University Press, Oxford p55. Friedman, T. (1999). The Lexus and the olive tree. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Geddes, M. (2001) 'What about the workers? Best value, employment and work in local public services'. Policy and Politics, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 497-508. Gill-McLure, W., M. Ironside & R. Seifert (2003) 'The consequences for the management of conflict of the reform of English local government finance and structure'. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, no. 14, pp. 255-2 Gore, A. (1993). Creating a government that works better and costs less. New York: Penquin Books pp101-144 Hood C. (1991) A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 69, 3-19. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPUBLICSECTORANDGOVERNANCE retrieved on 18th October 2008 Hughes O.E. (1994) Public management and administration: an introduction. Macmillan, Basingstoke. p45 M Pidd (2005), Perversity in public service performance measurement pp: 482-493 International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management Volume: 54 retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0790540512.html. Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990). A Review and Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents, Correlates and Consequences of Organizational Commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171-194. Mikkelsen Aslaug; Ogaard Torvald; Landsbergis Paul (2005); The effects of new dimensions of psychological job demands and job control on active learning and occupational health. journal of Work and Stress Volume 19, Issue 2 , pages 153 – 175 Milward, H. B. (Ed.). (1996). Symposium on the hollow state: Capacity, control, and performance in inter organizational settings. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6, 193–31 Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley pp250- 279. Richardson, M., S.Tailby, A. Danford, P. Stewart & M. Upchurch (2005) 'Best value and workplace partnership in local government'. Personnel Review, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 713-728. Romzek, B. (1989). Personal consequences of employee commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 649–661. Schachter, H. L. (1997). Reinventing government or reinventing ourselves: The role of citizen owners in making a better government. Albany: SUNY Press p14 Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. New York: W.W. Norton. Stewart J. and Walsh K. (1992) Change in the management of public services. Public Administration, 70, 499-518. Testa, M.R. (2001). Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Effort in the Service Environment. Journal of Psychology, 135(2), 226-236. Warr (1996) Psychology at Work (4th edition) London: Penguin p44 www.competition-regulation.org.uk retrieved on 16 October 2008 Yousef A. Darwish (2002) Job satisfaction as a mediator of the relationship between role stressors and organizational commitment: A study from an Arabic cultural perspective Journal of Managerial Psychology : 17 Issue: 4 MCB UP Ltd pp250 – 266 Read More