response-pol 8
Response one –pol-08
This week, we are reviewing and evaluating the pros and cons of five specific post-bureaucratic, organizational strategies - competitive government, privatization, decentralization, empowerment, and innovation. Competitive government is the antithesis of government monopolies; that is, the structure and process of government is transformed by injecting competition into the broader institutional system. In turn, the threat of competition forces public agencies and organizations to increase their productivity and overall performance in order to maintain their position and support within the system (Osborne and Gaebler 1992). In most cases, the threat of competition will compel government to streamline its operations and services, thereby enhancing its overall efficiency and effectiveness. However, such competitiveness could also reinforce the self-interested desires of organizations and their administrative leaders, while further exacerbating the level of inter-organizational conflict within the institutional structure, such that key organizations work against one another rather than working together to solve common problems.
As Kozinski and Bentz (2013) denote, privatization comes in two flavors: 1) the shift in the production of goods and service from the government to the private sector or 2) the transfer of entire government functions to private control. Without doubt, privatization can help to improve the qualities of domain specialization and operational efficiency, as the companies assuming these responsibilities already have the specialized equipment and expertise to produce specific goods and/or provide the required services to the general public. Moreover, private companies are naturally competitive and, therefore, have both the will and capacity to reduce their unit costs and make their operations more efficient. However, not all public goods and services can be effectively privatized, and private companies – regardless of their focus and specialization – are driven by different goals and motives than public organizations, thus suggesting that our democratic values may be overshadowed, if not completely subjugated by the demands for ever-increasing profits (Rosenbloom and Kravchuk 2001, Daft 2008, Kozinski and Bentz 2013).
The concepts of decentralization and employee empowerment are distinct, yet closely related matters. In fact, to be successful, the former concept is often reliant on the existence and quality of the latter. Decentralization refers to the delegation of responsibility, authority, and decisional discretion to lower-level units within an organization, or possibly to more independent, lower-level administrative units that “have jurisdiction over at least one program or function in a subnational geographic territory” (Rosenbloom and Kravchuk 2001, 108). In either case, a decentralized administrative structure places responsibility and decisional authority closer to the central policy or problem target, thereby increasing the speed and efficiency through which appropriate actions are implemented and problems are ultimately resolved. Nonetheless, decentralization makes it more difficult to coordinate administrative action and to control the activities of dispersed personnel (Rosenbloom and Kravchuk 2001). The concept of employee empowerment, on the other hand, refers to giving employees an increased share of responsibility, along with a certain level of autonomy for decision-making that is commensurate to their organizational tasks (Rosenbloom and Kravchuk 2001). In turn, empowered employees are often characterized by increased productivity and quality of work, enhanced capacities for adapting to change, and stronger collaboration and communicate skills (Daft 2008). Moreover, empowered employees are often more satisfied in their positions and therefore far less prone to turnover. However, empowerment can also create additional costs for training and development, promote conflict between colleagues and management, and cause problems due to poor understanding and lacking knowledge and experience (Daft 2008).
The notion of innovation refers to various things or activities (i.e. processes, programs, technologies, etc.) that are perceivably new to an adopting organization, not necessarily those that are objectively new, as measured by the lapse of time since their initial discovery or invention (Walker J. , 1969; Rogers, 2003; Berry & Berry, 2007). As such, innovation does not require the essence of objective newness; rather, public organizations can be just as innovative by adopting programs or processes, such as strategic planning and management, that have been well-established by other organizations for many years (Berry & Berry, 2007). Without doubt, innovative processes and technologies can help an agency or organization to reduce its operating and administrative costs (making it more efficient), to respond faster and more effectively to conditions of uncertainty and instability, and to improve its overall level of performance (Rogers 2003). However, innovations can expose the agency or organization to unforeseen risk, especially among early adopters and majorities, and often require significant investments and/or specialized skills to implement and master over time (Rogers 2003, Daft 2008). Still, when considering these post-bureaucratic, organizational strategies together, it is clear that innovation, at least in opinion, is the most important and effective option. Indeed, any agency or organization that embraces more innovative processes and technology will be far more likely to be accept change, have better capacities to deal with and adapt to conditions uncertainty and instability, and be more willing to question and challenge the status quo and to seek out better options for improving its overall efficiency and effectiveness. With that said, I also firmly believe that competitive government is the least effective option. The reason for my position is simple: any gains achieved in terms of organizational efficiency and productivity will likely be overshadowed by the resulting problems of self-interested behavior, inter-organizational conflict, and lost collaborative or synergistic capacities. Beyond this, the fact of the matter is that government agencies and organizations have a number of potentially better options to improve their overall performance – many of which are discussed here – besides pitting themselves against one another.
Just some thoughts…
Scottie
References
Berry, Frances, and William Berry. 2007. "Innovation and diffusion models in policy research." In Theories of the policy process, edited by Paul Sabatier, 223-260. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Daft, Richard. 2008. Management. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Kozinski, Alex, and Andrew Bentz. 2013. "Privatization and its discontents." Emory Law Journal 63 (2): 263-282.
Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rogers, Everett. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Rosenbloom, David, and Robert Kravchuk. 2001. Public administration: Understanding management, politics, and law in the public sector. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Walker, Jack. 1969. "The diffusion of innovations among the American states." American Political Science Review 63 (3): 880-899.
Response two-pol-8
This week’s reading and lesson did a good job outlining the pros and cons to privatizing government functions, production of goods and services, and the different forms and ways the many entities (executive, legislative, judicial, and popular) exert control over the bureaucracies.
As we read, there are many ways to make government more competitive, whether it would be through internal governmental initiatives or utilizing private companies. Using governmental incentives are something that has always been somewhat controversial. Unlike private companies that can reward employees for the expedience in their work, efficiency, and other objectives the private corporations have identified as things to maximize profits, it is not so easy for the government to do. When it comes to the government, rewarding employees can be a shaking thing considering tax payer money is being used to pay the employee or reward them in some other way. So privatizing the production of goods and services may be a good thing if government wishes to become leaner, but as far as privatizing functions, it may prove to be much more difficult; for example, equal access issues for all citizens (Kozinski, 2013). Reducing the amount of control the Executive Branch has on the bureaucracies, in other words decentralizing, may help with the inefficiencies of having to answer to two entities (Congress and the President), but I highly doubt that will happen given the fact the President uses the bureaucracies to carry out his or her agenda. Considering that the President can directly pick and choose who he or she wishes to be in almost 7,000 executive leadership positions in the Federal Government, I would argue the President (centralized) has a firm grasp on the control and steering of bureaucracies (Grulke, 2018). Utilizing innovation is arguable one of the most powerful tools (coupled with empowerment) readily available in the United States. Allowing the many talented and educated people in our country derive solutions to problems, whether utilizing new technology or revolutionizing processes and procedures, has and still will keep our Country on the leading edge in many areas. As we read in our lesson about President Clinton’s “Reinventing Government” initiatives, thinking outside of the box, changing things, can sometimes be what is exactly needed to revitalize the work force. Another positive benefit for allowing the bureaucracies and the employees themselves to be empowered to find innovative solutions is the buy in. Allowing the employee to be invested in whatever project they helped shape or create is always the best way to ensure stakeholders are supportive. Time after time micromanaged employees prove to be unmotivated and generally unhappy with their job. Empowering the employee to “drive” the company, or in this case the bureaucracy’s projects or objectives, with guiding leadership is the best way to motivate people; happy and invested employees equals efficiency and greater end results. For all of my reasons stated above regarding approaches to improving bureaucracies, I believe there is no one best choice. I believe having leaders that recognize that all approaches, when applied appropriately, can yield the best results.
References
Grulke, Eric, “Week 8: Controlling Bureaucracy”, American Military
University, accessed February 19, 2018, https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/366584/tool/ac046166-37b2-492d-8e6e-b208146732e9/ShowPage?returnView=&studentItemId=0&backPath=&errorMessage=&clearAttr=&source=&title=&sendingPage=1493974&newTopLevel=false&postedComment=false&addBefore=&itemId=4284556&path=push&addTool=-1&recheck=&id=
Kozinski, Alex and Andrew Bentz. 2013. "PRIVATIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS." Emory Law Journal 63
(2): 263-282. https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/1511585153?accountid=8289.
Response-three-pol-08
Bureaucracies have been continuously criticized for their lack of efficiency and effectiveness, scholars have debated a variety of solutions which may help solve the continuing problems with political bureaucracy: decentralization, privatization, innovation, competition, and empowerment. Each ranging in practicality and potential for implementation, though also allowing scholars to critically investigate potential solutions for an ongoing problem.
Decentralizing bureaucracies tends to come during the process of reorganization, reducing their power and reducing the amount of responsibility an agency has. “President Nixon and President Reagan both proposed “New Federalism” initiatives, which would have shifted responsibility for some social welfare programs to the states” (Grulke 2018). Eighty years ago centralization was necessary, “information technologies were primitive, communication between locations was slow and the public work force was relatively uneducated” (Osborne 1993, 3). Today information is limitless, communication between agencies occurs instantly all over the world, and public employees are almost all well-educated, making it much more possible to give individuals the authority to make important decisions (Osborne 1993, 3). Though decentralization has the ability to spread responsibility and power it may also leave agencies without the proper tools they need to manage their employees or overall responsibilities.
Privatization is one of the more popular arguments for change and deals with shifting functions to private control (Kozinski and Bentz 2013, 264). Privatization offers many benefits, when coupled with competition and specialization, you get efficiency (Kozinski and Bentz 2013, 264). Privatization of government agencies may have benefits that are not possible under bureaucracies; it promotes efficiency and innovation, increases labor productivity, improves capital investment, expands entrepreneurship and competition, increases transparency, ensures efficient pricing, enhances customer service, removes politics from decision-making, attracts foreign investment, boosts exports, deepens and broaden equity markets, and it benefits the government budget (Edwards 2016, 16). There are a variety of possible candidates that present opportunities for privatization, the U.S. Postal Service may be the best option. Between 2007 and 2016 the USPS has lost more than $50 billion, it has been able to borrow $15 billion from the U.S. treasury and is completely exempt from state, local, income, and property taxes and fees; it also has government regulatory power which is uses to create barriers to competition. Privatization sounds good, yet comes with a number of challenges such as a difficulty in maintaining accountability, incentives or disincentives of private contractors to not align with public interests, allowing some people to opt out of government services, a lack of government immunity, and the risk of public scrutiny disappearing from an agencies activities (Kozinski and Bentz 2013, 281).
Innovation may give agencies new opportunities to improve services and heighten productivity. Many of these opportunities revolve around entrepreneurship and inciting a firm based structure of management. Incorporating entrepreneurship into federal agencies would allow them to focus their attention on earning money, whereas bureaucracies concentrate on spending money (Osborne 1993, 2). A firm based structure would be best served maximizing organization to allow employees and the allocation of capital to react to dynamic changes in the economic or political environment. Innovation does have pitfalls, there are always just as many bad ideas as there are good. Each agency is different and therefore must apply varying innovations which may not align with private firms or entrepreneurial techniques.
In economic theory competition is effective and necessary to produce a healthy amount of competition, driving down prices and allowing for more efficient modes of production. Public monopolies have become the norm, yet monopolies “in the private sector often encourage inefficiency and inhibit change” (Osborne 1993, 2). Private firms in a competitive market have a strong incentive to increase efficiency, producing increased and better products at lower costs; “businesses seek profits, which are a measure of net value creation” (Edwards 2016, 9). If private businesses perform poorly they lose money, inherently facing bankruptcy or a takeover. This leads firms in competitive markets to continuously pursue improvements to procedures and policies. “By contrast, government entities are usually not penalized for excess costs, misjudging public needs, or other failures”, they can lose money or continuously fail and still receive funding (Edwards 2016, 9). Federal competition may lead to unsurmountable benefits, “in managed competition, private sector providers are encouraged to compete with city”, or federal, “departments for the opportunity to provide public services” (Guilfoy 2007). Competition is the healthy medium between completely public agencies and completely private agencies, it therefore faces some of the same pitfalls as privatizing federal agencies. Government contractors are not necessarily given government immunity and are effected much more by negative economic trends.
Empowering federal agencies would effectively give more power and responsibility to organizations. Granting more independence to such agencies may allow for restructuring techniques that would be concentrated on the specific issues of that particular organization, whether it be allowing them the power to create and pass laws or providing their own sets of checks and balances to regulate themselves. Bureaucracies have been organized publicly for a reason, whether it be the tragedy of the commons, collective action problems, or moral sensibility (Osborne 1993, 1). Bureaucracies create a higher level of equality and accountability, empowering such institutions would effectively allow them to further promote such ideals. Unfortunately empowerment may not be the answer, federal agencies have long been criticized for being inefficient and ineffective, allowing such institutional practices that are not likely to change, can only add to the many issues faced by the American government and is possibly the least effective approach to induce positive change.
Personally the best possible solution would be to increase competition. If federal bureaucracies are made to compete for contracts they would be required to incorporate more efficient and effective performance methods while also keeping a variety of the ideals that make them unique and respectable. Competition in an economic setting has helped our country flourish into a diverse and effective model for capitalism. Incorporating such ideals into the our political system may help to drive down federal spending and produce more efficient results, decreasing the time it takes for results to become apparent and allowing agencies to focus on revenue rather than costs.
Works Cited
Edwards, Chris. “Options for Federal Privatization and Reform Lesson from Abroad”. Cato Institute, Policy Analysis 794 (2016). Accessed February 21, 2018. https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/options-federal-privatization-reform-lessons-abroad#full.
Guilfoy, Tom. “Transforming a Municipal Bureaucracy”. Pioneer Institute, Better Government Competition (2007). Accessed February 20, 2018. http://bgc.pioneerinstitute.org/transforming-a-municipal-bureaucracy/.
Grulke, Eric. “Week 8: Controlling Bureaucracy”. APUS, Course Lesson Week 8 (2017). Accessed February 19, 2018. https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/366584/tool/ac046166-37b2-492d-8e6e-b208146732e9/ShowPage?returnView=&studentItemId=0&backPath=&errorMessage=&clearAttr=&source=&title=&sendingPage=1493985&newTopLevel=false&postedComment=false&addBefore=&itemId=4284552&path=push&addTool=-1&recheck=&id=.
Kozinski, Alex and Andrew Bentz. "Privatization and its Discontents”. Emory Law Journal 63 no. 2 (2013): 263-282. Accessed February 20, 2018. https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/1511585153?accountid=8289.
Osborne, David T. “Reinventing Government”. Leadership Abstracts 6 no. 1 (1993). Accessed February 19, 2018. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED367424.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm3OWT9LI0ukwvS9AbPCx07ok-XRDg&nossl=1&oi=scholarr.