PAD6106 Midterm Exam

Public administration guarantees the effectual execution of general programs and policies

to benefit the whole society. Learners, therefore, explore the connection of politics, economics,

and social welfare, attaining ideas for the decision-making that impacts societies. Understanding

public administration needs comprehension of various models, such as the theory of bureaucracy

and scientific management methods. Thus, as bureaucracy allows for improved stability and

administrative expertise, overcoming its hurdles needs cultural shifts and pledged leadership to

adopt detailed, networked chances that balance flexibility and responsibility.

Dominant Theories

There are vast public management theories; to begin with, there is scientific management.

The actual historical period for its formation by Frederick Taylor and others was at the beginning

of the 20th century. They elaborated a systematic approach that involved the study of everyday

processes with the primary objective of efficiency and productivity optimization. These main

principles featured task specialization, standardization of procedures, close supervision of

workers, and pay based on production equals efficiency. According to the father of scientific

management, organizations were treated just like machines, and besides, they were believed to

need to be designed and tuned for maximum productivity.

Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy from the early twentieth century concerns how

coordination and control are done in complex organizations functioning and operating using

authority. He maintained a need for an organizational structure based on a hierarchy of authority,

uniform rules of conduct and procedures, broad specialization of skills, and a high degree of

impersonality in performing the vast administrative duties. It was believed that the bureaucracies

furnished the administration of complex systems of labor or work.

 In the 1930s-1940s, the human relations theory represented by Elton Mayo envisioned a

system that considered human psychology and social needs and went beyond scientific

management. Works such as the Hawthorne experiments found that the quality of job satisfaction

and team unity is as essential as the inner personality traits of an employee. It first spotlighted

these four key areas: leadership, motivation, team dynamics, and organizational culture.

The situation-contingency theory originated in the 1960s by stating that there is no

universal form of organizing and entirely depends on the context or the situation. The structure

of an organization should "match" the conditions of the external environment, technology usage,

organizational strategy, management style, and size. Contingency theorists like Joan Woodward,

Paul Lawrence, and Jay Lorschtook into consideration that context determines how

organizational structures will be formed.

Next is the New Public Management Theory (NPM), developed during the 1980s-90s;

this reform movement aimed to improve efficiency and accountability in administrative

bureaucracies. Implementing these methods contended through privatization, adopting

approaches currently used in the private sector in government, e.g., restructuring,

decentralization, using contracts and partnerships, applying incentives and reward systems,

emphasizing customer care, and measuring performance.

Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy is used to identify an organization with a chain of command, rigid

organizational rules and procedures, and job division. Max Weber hypothesized that the

administration needed more accessible administration of straddling tasks necessary to manage

modern intricate societies. Accordingly, a bureaucracy should perform its function equally,

consistently, and effectively. The structure consisting of levels of hierarchy, norms, and division
of labor within various administrative systems further creates a platform for comprehensiveness

and control. Keeping people into government activities from aptitude means making people be

there based on their ability. At the same time, even though bureaucracies are often criticized in

practice, their effectiveness, as well as the nation's political stability, depend on it. Such

competition and gaps in the regulatory framework result in red tape that procrastinates decision-

making. Hierarchy and specialization result in working within a separate silo by deferring

cooperation and joint efforts. When human relationships transform into a dismissal of people,

this eventually results in indifference to humans. Bureaucracies introduce a measure of

inflexibility and their slow pace of change. They are prone to a lack of customer service

approach.

Bureaucracy Work

Bureaucracy has been shown not to lead to positive outcomes. The authority structure of

bureaucracies, characterized by their hierarchical organization, places high decision-making

capability at higher positions. Centralized decision-making and a strict hierarchy of power

advocate that only a few senior staff members hold the authority while the rest are excluded.

This will box up the employees at the lower level by limiting their freedom and entitlement to

differentiate. Therefore, those with the practical frontline know-how and experience will not be

able to be heard (Burns & Stalker, 1961).

The principle of bureaucracy, including the division of labor and specialization,

contributes to establishing the departments, units, and roles that are highly specialized and work

only within a specific organization. This gives rise to the proliferation of specialization on the

one hand but could be detrimental to teamwork in attaining a common goal on the other if strict

delimitation is made. The synergy and flow within the functional units are often lost after
segmentation becomes isolated from the remaining zones. Information sharing disappears, and

the decision-to-do approach changes from a joint effort into a competition of units instead of

strengthening collaborative capabilities. The restriction of task-specific departments hinders

holistic thinking, and accordingly, an organization's internal network becomes harmful. Working

in a team needs a certain degree of cross-functional flexibility combined with deep knowledge to

maximize organizational contrapunctuality (Selznick, 1949). Besides, scholars usually find their

origins in inappropriate management, the absence of a vision or the reluctance to face events, and

a high level of risk aversion or resistance to change by the leaders. As Rainey says, agencies in

the public sector meet the necessity of having effective leadership to advance changes, create the

intuition of wholeness, mobilize staff and combine functions, utilize the field of view, and

increase flexibility in the bureaucratic structures. Leadership is that senior management level

providing strategic guidance, spearheading change projects, instilling impulse, talent

management, and tackling thorny issues, among others, that lead to the underdevelopment of

bureaucracy.

Since the 1980s, NPM, with its reform agenda, has been considered an influential

paradigm aimed at overcoming the pervasive problems of the traditional public administration

with its eurocentric, dogmatic, and exhausted views. Through NPM, the focus of the public

sector was shifted to mimicking the private sector management practices of promoting

efficiency, innovation, and customers (Hood, 1991). Major NPM programs like empowering

middle-level managers and allocating more authority to key staff against a stagnant hierarchal

system. The other key aspect was to deliver a pro share of contracting out or privatizing the

government services to create a competitive environment with cost savings. Working with

private organizations that have the mission of keeping our citizens healthy and providing the
community with unique expertise is also another approach we plan to use. NPM sought to trigger

a behavioral change in the civil service by specifically encouraging economic tools to provide

incentives and pay based on performance. This more innovative approach replaced a reliance

only on public service motivation. 'The policy move was to put the customer orientation into the

mainstream instead of having the agencies being internally focused. Throughput performance

measurement tools were meticulously designed to aid in tracking outcomes as well as boosting

accountability. The targets constituted the diminution of bureaucracy and permitted the staff to

use their initiative; the introduction of creativity and flexibility; the authorization of lower level

staff to use their discretion, the inculcation of staff to be result orientated, and the effectiveness

of the agency at adapting to dynamic changes.

Riggs and Farazmand have developed the notion of polycentric and hierarchical systems

whereby they aimed to reconstitute the established hierarchical system of authority and balance

the need for some form of order and flexibility. The problem, by implication, is that this term

refers to doing away with almost the entire model of the traditional, hierarchical firm in favor of

decentralized, modular organizations that revolve around individual problems and local

circumstances. Hence, Riggs offers two solutions: further disintegration of the bureaucratic

departments and the better adaptation of mutual coordination with some redundancy allowed.

The result is an order by specialization but without detrimental command and control. The latter

is oppressive for a state meant to be of and by the people. Farazmand's description of hierarchy

will be helpful since it provides an agile model of interdisciplinary teams that can be formed

based on the importance of those priorities (Farazmand 1990, pp. 156-159). Both offerings also

help provide customized solutions rather than standardized resolution approaches.

 Culturally, striking a balance between participation and bringing in democratic ideals and

subject matter expertise can make bureaucracy more encompassing of all people. Meier contends

that one of the goals of the bureaucracy should be to combine the nature of specialization with a

deliberative system utilizing considerations such as policy juries, participatory budgeting, and

staffing of the advisory committees (Meier p. 194-196). It enables technical correctness and

public participation in decision-making.

Insofar as decentralized experimentation happens, polycentric and heterarchic reforms

can be iterative and developed through an evolutionary process rather than implemented as

complete top-down changes. This process enables measurement, learning, and acquiring

feedback about which plan dimensions are effective or ineffective, thus allowing for continuous

improvement (Riggs p. 129; Farazmand 2008:18-19).

The Difficulty of the Running Changes the History

Recent years have witnessed the implementation of many reforms aimed at improving the

performance of bureaucracy via methods such as the New Public Management (NPM) and the

government re-invention concept. On the one hand, the outcomes of the reforms have not

presented with consistent results.

On the bright side, NPM reforms have positively impacted some areas, such as efficiency

and accountability. Decentralization of governance, contracting, and service delivery have

boosted the agility of the other agencies, and in their operations, they have adopted the results-

oriented approach (Hood 1991). Indicators and remuneration systems that have made results

reach desired values where purposes are visible and trackers good. Nonetheless, besides those

problems, it has also triggered new concerns. Outsourcing falls into a zone of responsibility

problem when the private operators cannot provide quality services. Performance arrangements
with funding flexibility have distorted conduct when measurability is too simple, looking at the

fundamental objectives. The sudden decrease in central departments' oomph and the creation of

multi-contractors have failed to guarantee cooperation. In some cases, the motivation for public

service has lost genuine commitment to the public; thus, the economic incentives have taken the

front seat (Goodsell 1996).

In addition, reinventing government in a way that reforms can operate to solve the main

problems of traditional government through joint action, participation, and IT-based

transparency. However, these solutions have not solved the problem but entirely avoided or

postponed it. Participatory mechanisms bleed to the level of tokenized empowerment as the stage

is at the user's disposal only by manipulating the design. IT systems reduced transparency,

though they improved spotting of citizens' and employees' irregular segments. However,

engaging in networks and partnerships is challenging to maintain, especially across barriers

(Fountain 2001).

Thus, neither the New Public Management theory nor the reinventing government could

drastically go against the established and stable rigidity of outdated bureaucracies and cultures.

First and foremost, there are issues with bottlenecks, risk aversion, entrenchment of silos, and

rule-dominated rigidity. Management failed to have or show the capacity and will to lead a

system-deep change (Rainey 2014).

Possible solutions would steer towards holistic and revolutionizing transformation. The

role of music in medicine has been increasingly acknowledged for its potential to alleviate

individuals' physical and psychological issues. Research has shown that various types of music,

such as classical, traditional, or relaxing songs, can reduce stress levels, improve mood, and

promote relaxation in patients. Of top priority is for administrative procedures and structures to
be simplified so that they centrally focus on outcomes over rules (Wilson 1989). However, there

must also be a balance between flexibility and responsibility. Decentralization of power can be

achieved well if it is combined with networked coordination. Administration of civil service

encompasses retraining missions to reveal buoyancy and wisdom that have been eroded by New

Public Management (NPM) (Gooden and Portillo 2010). User and line staff should be in policy

design, as they are expected to be only responsible for policy implementation.

The most critical part of the process is integrating these reforms from a leadership and

cultural point of view to lead to an outcome. As Fernandez and Rainey (2006) pointed out,

influential public officials must create and promote an environment conducive to innovation and

empowerment just as they should provide the fundamental strategy and shared values. In the

meantime, they make an amalgam of the necessary evolution of bureaucracy through the

changing environment. When squad leaders adhere to this paradigm of integrating both practical,

technical, and cultural reformists simultaneously, bureaucracy can become more responsive

while not losing stability and expertise.

Conclusion

As a result, we face the unavoidable fact that bureaucracy still stands to be an

insurmountable problem for public administration. Reforms wouldn't be quick wins but

accomplish some goals befitting the past, not necessarily the future. Technical improvements

such as process, organization, and technology can only bear fruits if accompanied by a change in

values, leadership, and stakeholder participation programs. Adaptive systematic models that are

responsive and accountable with a balance between flexibility and accountability could be the

solution in that quest forward. Even so, no reform can be achieved without persistent, competent

governmental leadership capable of promoting necessary changes and designing an adaptable –

though not flexible, otherwise it may start self-corrupting–– administrative system on the

grounds of public values. It is, therefore, vital that a continuous range of multipronged

improvement be implemented by avoiding dissipating this promise while struggling to overcome

bureaucracy platitudes.