Public Administration ‒ The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

PERSONAL ACTION IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS

Public administration is concerned with the management of public programs. Public administrators work at all levels of government, both at home and abroad, and they manage nonprofit organizations, associations, and interest groups of all kinds. The substantive fields within which public managers work range across the varied interests of government and public affairs, from defense and national security to social welfare and environmental quality, from the design and construction of roads and bridges to the exploration of space, and from taxation and financial administration to human resources management. Though public administration varies tremendously in its scope and substance, those who work in public organizations share certain commitments. Among these, none is more important than a commitment to public service.

In this book, we examine the work of public administrators in many different kinds of

organizations and define the political and historical context within which public and nonprofit organizations operate. We examine the commitments that underlie the notion of

public service and the opportunities and constraints they place on public action. We examine

the many technical fields, such as planning, budgeting, personnel, and evaluation, with which

public administrators must be familiar and consider the personal and interpersonal talents

needed by successful public managers. Most importantly, we emphasize the knowledge,

skills, and values that you will need to be both effective and responsible as you act in the

public interest.

Although we introduce many different areas of public administration, we do so from a

particular point of view that provides a unifying theme in our examination of administrative

work in public and nonprofit organizations. This point of view holds that there is something

very special about public administration: your work in public service is distinguished by its pursuit of democratic values, and this concern affects nearly everything you do as a public

manager. As a public administrator, you are obligated not only to achieve efficiency and

effectiveness, but also to be responsive to the many bodies that help define the public

interest: elected officials, members of the legislature, client or constituent groups, and citizens generally. This special obligation requires that you be ever mindful of managerial

concerns, political concerns, and ethical concerns and that you develop structures and

processes that take into account all three. The result is a particularly complicated approach to getting things done, but one that has special rewards. From service to the public, you may

gain a very special sense of accomplishment and personal satisfaction, one that comes from

helping others and from pursuing the public interest.

What Is Public Administration? We have already described public administration as the management of public programs.

But to elaborate on this definition, it helps to know a little history. Happily, there is only a

little history to learn because public administration, at least in this country, is a relatively

young field of study. Of course, people have been engaged in the management of public

programs for thousands of years. (For example, imagine the administrative headaches

involved in building the Egyptian pyramids!) However, the self-conscious study of public administration is a fairly recent development, often dated to the work of French and German

scholars in the late nineteenth century. Public administration as we know it today in the

United States began as the study of government administration, and that study began as part

of late-nineteenth-century efforts to reform governmental operations. Most scholars and practitioners date the beginnings of the deliberate study of public administration in this

country to an 1887 essay written by Woodrow Wilson (then scholar, later president).

Although some have recently questioned the influence Wilson had on the field, there is no

question that his essay marks the symbolic beginning of American public administration.

Wilson's essay was basically reformist in nature, and highly practical. It was designed to

address the inefficiency and open corruption that had become a part of government during

the late 1880s and to suggest certain remedies within the administration of government.

Wilson argued that although scholars and practitioners had focused on political institutions

(such as Congress or the presidency), too little attention had been paid to administrative

questions—the questions of how the government actually operates. The result, according to

Wilson, was that it was becoming “harder to run a constitution than to frame one” (Wilson, 1887, p. 200). Wilson first wanted the work of government agencies to be accomplished

more effectively. He felt that such organizations would operate best if they pursued the

private sector's commitment to efficient or “businesslike” operations. Wilson, of course,

wrote in a period during which business, industry, and technology were developing in rapid and surprising new ways. Like others, he admired the managerial philosophies that business

seemed to be developing. Among these notions, Wilson particularly favored the idea of

concentrating power in a single authority atop a highly integrated and centralized administrative structure. His recommendation of a strong chief executive has been echoed

by writers (and chief executives!) even to the present.

The men and women who followed Wilson in discussions of what came to be called public

administration were very practical people, concerned with reforming governmental

structures and making them more efficient. But they were also quite careful to place these

concerns within the context of democratic government. How might the principles of

democracy, including such lofty ideals as liberty and justice, be extended throughout

government and throughout society? Indeed, Leonard D. White, one of the most thoughtful

of the early writers, commented that “the study of public administration ... needs to be

related to the broad generalizations of political theory concerned with such matters as

justice, liberty, obedience, and the role of the state in human affairs” (White, 1948, p. 10). As we will see, a continued concern for operating efficiently while at the same time operating in

a way consistent with democratic values marks the field of public administration even today.

Values of Democracy

Because their commitment to democratic values so clearly affects the work of those in public

and nonprofit organizations in this country, it may be helpful to briefly review some of the key commitments we associate with democratic governance. The term democracy well

reflects its roots: the Greek words demos, meaning “people,” and kratis, meaning “authority.”

Generally speaking, democracy refers to a political system in which the interests of the

people at large prevail. However, it is clear that within these broad parameters there are many different conceptions of democracy. For example, at the end of World War II,

representatives of the United States, Great Britain, France, and Russia met to consider the

“democratization” of Germany. Yet, it soon became apparent that the Russian idea of

democracy was quite different from the Western view. While Westerners associated democracy with such ideas as free elections, freedom of the press, freedom of movement,

and the freedom to criticize the government, the Russians had quite a different conception.

For them, democracy did not necessarily mean government by or of the people, but rather

whether government policy is carried out in the interest of the people.

Even today, the term democratic is used in many different ways by many different people.

For example, North Korea, a highly authoritarian state, claims aspects of democracy such as

a multiparty system. In the American experience, however, there is general agreement that democracy refers to a political system—a way of ordering power and authority in which

decision-making power is widely shared among members of the society. Or to put it in terms

of control, democracy is a system in which many ordinary citizens exercise a high degree of

control over their leaders. (In either case, the opposite would be an oligarchy, government by the few, or an autocracy, government by one.)

But democracy is defined not only in terms of processes or procedures (for example, rule by

many), but also by several important cultural values that are typically pursued in a democratic society. Among these, three—individualism, equality, and liberty—have been of

special importance to those who have helped shape the American idea of democracy. The

first is individualism, the idea that the dignity and integrity of the individual is of supreme

importance. Individualism suggests that achieving the fullest potential of each individual is the

best measure of the success of our political system. It is the idea of individualism that is reflected

in the familiar phrasing of the Declaration of Independence—that all persons are endowed by

their Creator with certain inalienable rights and that it is the purpose of government to secure

those rights.

Second is the idea of equality, which does not mean that all persons are equal in their talents

or possessions, but that each individual has an equal claim to life, liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness. In this view, each person should be seen as an end, not as a means; no one should be a mere tool of another. Moreover, equality in the field of government would suggest that

differences in wealth or position are not sufficient reasons for giving one group preference over

another. In a democracy, each one has an equal claim to the attention of the system and should

be able to expect just outcomes.

A third central value of a democratic society is liberty, or freedom. This idea suggests that the

individual citizen of a democracy should have a high degree of self-determination. You should have the maximum opportunity to select your own purposes in life and to choose the means to

accomplish them. Liberty is more than just the absence of constraints; it suggests the freedom

to act positively in pursuit of one's own ends. Only by allowing individuals the freedom to

choose, it is argued, will social progress occur.

The influence of these themes on the development of public administration is undeniable,

although, as we will see, people differ over the degree to which they influence the day-to-day

operations of public agencies. Similarly, the way in which democracy has been

operationalized in the American political tradition has had important influences on the operation of public organizations. For example, take the traditional separation of legislative,

executive, and judicial functions. The primary task of the legislative branch is to make policy

through the enactment of legislation, the primary task of the executive branch is the faithful

execution or implementation of policy, and the primary task of the judicial branch is the

interpretation of the law, especially as it relates to constitutional guarantees.

David Rosenbloom of American University has argued that these three functions of

government are related to three views of the role of public administrators in American society (Rosenbloom, 1993, p. 15):

• The managerial approach to public administration, which Rosenbloom connects to

the executive function, emphasizes the management and organization of public

organizations. As with Wilson, this view sometimes suggests that management in the public sector is very much like that in the private sector; that is, it is primarily

concerned with efficiency.

• The political approach to public administration, related to the legislative function in government, is more concerned about ensuring constitutional safeguards, such as those

already mentioned. Efficiency becomes less a concern than effectiveness or

responsiveness.

• Finally, the legal approach to public administration, related to the judicial function,

emphasizes the administrator's role in applying and enforcing the law in specific

situations. It is also concerned with the adjudicatory role of public organizations.

Although we will examine these various approaches in more detail as we move through the

book, it is important to understand at the outset that all actions of public administrators take

place within an important political context: a commitment to democratic ideals and

practices. Yet, today, that ideal is somewhat tarnished. Americans' trust in government has

been steadily declining over the last several decades. Questions are being raised not only about the quality and productivity of government, but also about the responsiveness of

government to the people (see the box “Public Administration in History: The Democratic

Dream”). This tension will be a persistent theme as we examine contemporary approaches

to the study and practice of public administration. Borrowing a phrase from earlier times, the task of public administrators today is still to “make democracy suitable for modern

conditions.” Doing so in a time of confusion and mistrust will be a special challenge to those

in public administration as we move through the twenty-first century. Restoring trust in government and public service is not merely a responsibility of elected officials; it is a

responsibility of appointed administrators as well. Keep this in mind as we examine the

various approaches and techniques that are appropriate to public administration today.

Public Administration in History

THE DEMOCRATIC DREAM

The predominant American political belief—attained, pretended, or otherwise—from before

the establishment of the republic and throughout the nation's history has been the democratic dream, nominally based on some version of popular representation and

governance. Virtually every political structure and reform has been predicated on some

mode of the democratic, egalitarian ethos, even as they oscillated back and forth between its Jeffersonian and Hamilto-nian poles. Indeed, to imagine a widespread domestic political

movement (and probably foreign policy initiative) that does not in some very visible manner

drape itself in the sacred vestment of democracy is inconceivable.

It is in this ambience that American political philosophies, politics themselves, and even certain professions (e.g., public administration) were created and nurtured. Not surprisingly,

public service and public administration in the United States have shared a similar

democratic coloration. From the early days of the professional public administrator—when

Woodrow Wilson temporarily partitioned “politics” and “administration” into separate entities—we find a solid stream of democratic theory underpinning and underlining

contemporary public administration.

But the Constitution cannot serve as a singular political poultice for whatever ails the body politic. Within the country at large, there is a tangible sense that as often as appeals are made

to the nation's democratic benchmarks, these are more calls to a fading faith than references

to reality. Americans are apparently disenchanted with their politics, both in terms of

substance and process. Our public life is rife with discontent. Americans do not believe they

have much to say about how they are governed and do not trust government to do the right

thing.

SOURCE: Reprinted by permission from Democracy and the Policy Sciences by Peter deLeon,

State University of New York Press, © 1997, State University of New York. All rights reserved.

Contrasting Business and Public Administration

One issue, however, deserves further comment up front. Even though work in public and nonprofit organizations is guided by commitments to democratic ideals, it is also involved

with management, and, for that reason, public administration is often confused with

business management. Indeed, such confusion has occasionally been prominent in the field of public administration. (As we have already seen, early writers in the field often suggested

that government should become more like business, a sentiment heard even today.)

Certainly, there are some similarities between business and public administration. Managers

across all sectors—public, private, and nonprofit—are involved in questions of organizational design, the allocation of scarce resources, and the management of people. But

most observers would agree that the primary distinction between business and public

service is that business is primarily concerned with making a profit, while public service is

concerned with delivering services or regulating individual or group behavior in the public interest. All would agree that the context of public and nonprofit management significantly

alters the work itself. Nonprofit management is characterized by ambiguity, pluralistic

decision making, and visibility (see the box “Exploring Concepts: Public Administration Is

Different from Business”).

Exploring Concepts

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IS DIFFERENT FROM BUSINESS

• The objectives are much more ambiguous.

• There are multiple decision centers.

• Public administrators operate with much greater visibility.

Ambiguity One difference between public administration and business management lies in the purposes to be served. In most businesses, even those with service

objectives, the bottom-line profit is the basic measure of evaluating how good a job

the organization is doing. In turn, the performance of individual managers can, in

many cases, be directly measured in terms of their unit's contribution to the overall

profit of the company. This is not true of public or nonprofit agencies, where the

objectives of the organization may be more ambiguous and where making or losing

money is not the main criterion for success or failure.

Often the objectives of public and nonprofit organizations are stated in terms of service; for

example, an agency's mission may be to protect the quality of the environment or to provide

an adequate level of rehabilitative services to the disabled. Yet, such service objectives are

much harder to specify and to measure. What does “quality” mean with respect to the environment? What level of service to the disabled is “adequate”? The difficulty of specifying

objectives such as these makes it harder to assess the performance of government agencies

and, in turn, their managers. Moreover, most businesses wouldn't tolerate a money-losing

operation in a depressed area, but a public or nonprofit organization, though equally attentive to the money being spent, might well consider meeting human needs more

important than the financial “bottom line.”

Pluralistic Decision Making A second difference between work in public service and

in business is that public service, at least in a democratic society, requires that many

groups and individuals have access to the decision process. As a result, decisions that

might be made rapidly by one individual or a small group in a business might, in a

public or nonprofit organization, require input from many diverse groups and organizations. Consequently, it is difficult to speak of specific decision centers in

government. W. Michael Blumenthal, a business executive who became secretary of

the treasury, described the situation this way:

If the President said to me, you develop [an economic policy toward Japan], Mike, the moment that becomes known there are innumerable interest groups that begin to play a role.

The House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, and every member

on them and every staff member has an opinion and seeks to exert influence. Also, the

Foreign Relations Committee, the oversight committees, and then the interest groups, business, the unions, the State Department, the Commerce Department, OMB, Council of

Economic Advisers, and not only the top people, but all their staff people, not to speak of the

President's staff and the entire press. (Blumenthal, 1983, p. 30)

The pluralistic nature of public decision making has led many business executives who have

worked in the public or nonprofit sectors to comment that this feature makes public and

nonprofit management much more difficult than management in the private sector. But, as

Blumenthal points out, “the diversity of interests seeking to affect policy is the nature and essence of democratic government” (Blumenthal, 1983, pp. 30–31). Many have also found

that this aspect of public service is particularly challenging and rewarding.

Visibility Finally, managers in public and nonprofit organizations seem to operate

with much greater visibility than their counterparts in industry. Public service in a democratic society is subject to constant scrutiny by both the press and the public. The

media seem to cover everything you do, and this may be a mixed blessing. On the one

hand, media coverage enables the leaders of the organization to communicate rapidly to external and internal audiences. On the other hand, the media's constant scrutiny

of policy positions and their labeling of inconsistencies and policy differences as

weaknesses can be limiting to free discussion of issues in their formulation stage. And,

of course, the occasional intrusions of the press into even the most mundane personal

matters can be excessive; one local newspaper even reported a problem a new city

manager was having with his refrigerator! Yet, executives in government realize that

it is essential to a democratic society that their work be visible to the public and

subject to the interest and control of the citizenry. Indeed, one of the current concerns of public executives is how to increase the “transparency” of their work, something we

will explore in more detail later.

What Would You Do?

You have just been appointed city manager of a city of 30,000 in the upper Midwest. While the economy of the area is generally stable, there is talk of one of the area's major industrial

firms moving out, taking much-needed jobs from the community. On the other hand, that

firm has been a persistent contributor to pollution in the area. The city council seems evenly

divided on whether to make an effort to keep the firm and its jobs or simply let it go. In your

first six months on the job, what would you do?

Thinking about Public Administration Today

With this background, we can now think more carefully about how the field of public

administration has traditionally been described and how we might develop an action

orientation toward the study of public administration suitable to a contemporary world. In terms of definition, many early writers spoke of administration as a function of government,

something that occurred in many shapes and forms throughout government. There were

obviously administrative activities performed in the executive branch, but there were also administrative functions performed in the legislative and judicial branches. Some even noted

that from time to time any single official might engage in both legislative and administrative

functions.

Somewhat later, public administration was viewed as merely concerned with the activities of the executive agencies of government. In the words of an early text, public administration

is concerned with the “operations of the administrative branch only” (Willoughby, 1927, p.

1). By the 1950s, such a perspective was so firmly entrenched that the leading text of that

period stated, “By public administration is meant, in common usage, the activities of the executive branches of national, state, and local governments; independent boards and

commissions set up by Congress and state legislatures; government corporations; and

certain other agencies of a specialized character” (Simon et al., 1950, p. 7). Modern

definitions of public administration have returned to the traditional view, giving attention to

administrative officials in all branches of government and even focusing on those in

nonprofit organizations.

For our purposes, a formal definition of the field may be less important than trying to discover how public administration is experienced by those in the “real world.” Our

commitment to an action orientation suggests that we try to determine the kinds of activities

engaged in by public administrators and the environmental factors that help to shape their

work. We have already seen how the ambiguity of service objectives, the pluralistic nature of governmental decision making, and the visibility of management in the public and

nonprofit sectors create a context in which managerial work is significantly different from

that in other settings. From the standpoint of the real-world administrator, the things that

really make the difference in the way you operate are not whether you are employed by a government agency, but whether you work under circumstances that feature an ambiguity

of objectives, a multiplicity of decision centers, and high public visibility.

Networking

The leading national organization for those in the field of public administration is the

American Society for Public Administration. See -w-w-w-.-a-s-p-a-n-e-t-.-o-r-g. Other related

organizations with helpful websites include the National Academy of Public Administration

at -w-w-w-.-n-a-p-a-w-a-s-h-.-o-r-g; the Association for Public Policy Analysis and

Management at -w-w-w-.-a-p-p-a-m-.-o-r-g; the International City Management Association at -w-w-w-.-i-c-m-a-.-o-r-g; the American Political Science Association at

-w-w-w-.-a-p-s-a-n-e-t-.-o-r-g; the Alliance for Nonprofit Management at

-w-w-w-.-a-l-l-i-a-n-c-e-o-n-l-i-n-e-.-o-r-g; the Independent Sector at

-w-w-w-.-i-n-d-e-p-e-n-d-e-n-t-s-e-c-t-o-r-.-o-r-g; and the Academy of Management, Public and Nonprofit Division at http://-d-i-v-i-s-i-o-n-.-a-o-m-o-n-l-i-n-e-.-o-r-g-/-p-h-p-/.

Publicness These features in turn all derive from the simple fact that the public or

nonprofit manager is pursuing public purposes. In terms of the actions and

experiences of the public administrator, therefore, we may say that it is the “publicness” of the work of the public or nonprofit manager that distinguishes public

administration from other similar activities. This view of the administrator's role

suggests that, as a public or nonprofit manager, you must operate with one eye toward

managerial effectiveness and the other toward the desires and demands of the public.

It recognizes that you are likely to experience an inevitable tension between efficiency

and responsiveness as you work in governmental or nongovernmental organizations,

a tension that will be absolutely central to your work.

Let us highlight some of the implications of this orientation. Many commentators point out

that the distinction between public and private management is no longer simply a distinction

between business and government or between profit and service. In fact, more and more

frequently, we encounter situations in which traditionally public organizations are pursuing enhanced revenues (profits?), and traditionally private organizations are concerned with the

provision of services. What is important is not merely what is being sought, but rather whose

interest is being served. On this basis, a private enterprise is one in which private interests privately arrived at are paramount. A public organization, on the other hand, is one in which

public interests publicly arrived at are paramount.

There is a trend in our society for greater openness and responsiveness on the part of many

organizations. Most associations and nonprofit organizations would fit this mold, and

managers in those organizations must certainly be attentive to both efficiency and

responsiveness. But many corporations as well are finding it important to open their

decision-making processes to public scrutiny and involvement. The range of organizations

engaged in public service (and the applicability of public and nonprofit management) seems ever-increasing.

Certainly this trend has become even more important over the last couple of decades as more

and more public problems require building collaborations or networks involving public, private, and nonprofit organizations (O'Leary & Bingham, 2009). In part this result has come

about as government staffing has been decreased and more and more services are contracted

out to private and nonprofit organizations. In part it has come about because the

complexities of the problems we face require the involvement of many groups. Building networks of organizations to address public problems obviously makes solutions more

difficult. “As more public programs are delivered by private and nonprofit actors, and as

many more public programs rely on intricate public-private-nonprofit partnerships, it is ever harder to make sure the right dots are connected well” (Kettl, 2009, p. 26). Similarly,

these arrangements make issues of responsibility and accountability more difficult as well,

but they do represent the changing face of public administration that you will encounter.

The Global Context We need to also recognize that changing economic conditions have combined with technological developments to mean that public administration is no

longer bound by national borders, as the traditional definitions of the field implied.

Today the international dimensions of public administration are more important than

ever. Understanding the activities of political and administrative officials in other countries is important not only for those who will spend part of their careers outside

the United States, but also for those who will work at home. Increasingly, city

managers, even in small communities, find that to be effective in local economic

development activities, they must be experts in international business. But global

interdependencies will affect us in other ways as well; for example, the deforestation

in Brazil, Africa, and the Philippines will directly affect the quality of our own

environment. And, of course, we cannot overlook our obligation to help reduce poverty and hunger throughout the world.

Several diverse—indeed, competing—views have emerged relating to this globalization

trend. They range from a critical perspective, in which the trend is seen as an attempt by

developed nations to introduce Western values into other regions, to what supporters believe to be a chance to extend employment opportunities and wealth creation into

impoverished nations. This latter view suggests that, over time, all of us in the global village

will benefit from the forces of globalization and the internationalization of economic markets.

The impact of globalization on public administration should not be underestimated.

However, relating to the internationalization process is a pattern that carries perhaps even

greater implications: decentralization. Central governments increasingly are handing over

new powers and responsibilities to local and regional authorities. And in many cases, these

jurisdictions lack the capacity and resources to deal effectively with their newfound

authority.

To better understand these trends, and what they mean for public administration, the

development of more globalized, comparative forms of analysis and practice will be critical.

We will require both an understanding of international issues and a way of more effectively

managing with global issues in our own communities. So as we continue to live in our “global village,” we will be challenged to deal with opportunities and threats that defy national

boundaries. Our systems of governance, consequently, will need to reflect our concern for

the public interest—both at home and abroad.

We now have a notion of the complexity of work in the public and nonprofit sectors—the complexity inherent in the technical work of governmental and nongovernmental agencies,

but, even more important, the complexity of the political and ethical context in which

managers operate. Indeed, as noted before, this complexity will provide a theme that ties together many aspects of your work as an administrator. The way you set objectives, the way

you develop budgets and hire personnel, the way you interact with other organizations and

with your own clientele, the way you evaluate the success or failure of your programs—all

of these aspects of your work as an administrator, and many more, are directly affected by the fact that you will be managing in the public interest.

What Do Public Administrators Do? An action orientation to public administration requires that we focus on what public and

nonprofit managers actually do—how they act in real-world situations. How do they spend their time? What skills do they require to do their work well? What are the rewards and

frustrations of public service? From the perspective of the administrator, we can ask, what

characterizes the most effective and responsible public or nonprofit management? What are

the demands on administrators? What are the satisfactions that public managers draw from their work?

We will approach these issues by concentrating on the skills managers need to accomplish

their work. In a classic article in the Harvard Business Review, Robert Katz provided the first major descriptions of the general skills all managers need: conceptual, technical, and human

(Katz, 1974):

• Conceptual skills include the ability to think abstractly, especially in regard to the

manager's concept of the organization. This category also involves the ability to see the organization as a whole, how all the parts or functions work and fit together, and

how making a change in one part will affect other parts. Conceptual skills also include

the ability to see how the organization, or parts of it, relate to the organization's

environment. • Technical skills refer to an understanding of, and proficiency in, the methods,

processes, and techniques for accomplishing tasks. These are, for example, the skills

of an accountant who can conduct an audit or develop an income statement or the skills of a mechanic who can repair an engine.

• Human skills involve the capacity to work effectively as a member of a group or the

ability to get others to work together effectively. (“Others” may include subordinates,

superiors, managers at the same level, or virtually anyone with whom one might work on a given project or assignment.)

All these skills are important to managers, but they are not equally important to all

managers. Katz makes a strong argument that technical skills are most important to

managers at the supervisory level who manage day-to-day operations but become less and less important as the level of management increases. On the other hand, conceptual skills are

most important to top-level managers who must deal with the organization as a whole rather

than with just one or a few parts of it. Conceptual skills are less important at the middle- management level and least important at the supervisory level.

Human skills, however, maintain a constant, high level of importance; they are critical

regardless of one's level. How managers' human skills are employed may vary from level to level (for example, top managers lead more meetings than supervisory managers), but as a

category, human skills remain the one constant for managerial success. In this book, we will

consider the knowledge and values associated with public management (conceptual skills),

the techniques public managers require in such areas as budgeting and personnel (technical skills), and the personal and interpersonal qualities that help managers work effectively with

others (human skills).

An Inventory of Public Management Skills

One way to elaborate on an action approach is to create an inventory of the skills and

competencies required for successful public and nonprofit management. There are many

ways such an inventory can be constructed. One of the best ways is to talk with public and

nonprofit managers about their work, as we suggest in exercise 1 at the end of the chapter. Several research studies have sought to answer this question by identifying the skills that

are critical to managerial success. Of these studies, an early study by the federal

government's Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is particularly helpful (Flanders &

Utterback, 1985). The OPM study was based on information gathered from a large number of highly effective federal managers and produced a description of the broad elements of

managerial performance at the supervisory, managerial, and executive levels.

Networking

Websites dealing with management issues at the federal level include the Office of Personnel Management at -w-w-w-.-o-p-m-.-g-o-v and those services listed at -w-w-w-.-u-s-a-.-g-o-v.

You might also be interested in the websites of the following: Governing magazine at

-w-w-w-.-g-o-v-e-r-n-i-n-g-.-c-o-m; the Chronicle of Philanthropy at

-w-w-w-.-p-h-i-l-a-n-t-h-r-o-p-y-.-c-o-m; Government Executive magazine at

-w-w-w-.-g-o-v-e-x-e-c-.-c-o-m; and The Public Manager at

-w-w-w-.-t-h-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-m-a-n-a-g-e-r-.-o-r-g.

According to the OPM study, the competencies of managers include being sensitive to agency

policies and national concerns; representing the organization and acting as a liaison to those outside the organization; establishing organizational goals and the processes to carry them

out; obtaining and allocating necessary resources to achieve the agency's purposes;

effectively utilizing human resources; and monitoring, evaluating, and redirecting the work of the organization. But the OPM researchers recognized that managerial excellence requires

not only doing the job, but doing it well. For this reason, they developed a set of skills,

attitudes, and perspectives that seemed to distinguish the work of highly successful

managers.

Different skills are required at different levels. As managers move up the organizational

ladder, they must accumulate increasingly broader sets of skills. The researchers suggest, for

example, that first-line supervisors must apply communication skills, interpersonal

sensitivity, and technical competence to ensure effective performance on their own part and within the work unit. In addition, their actions must begin to reflect those characteristics in

the next ring: leadership, flexibility, an action orientation, and a focus on results.

Middle managers, on the other hand, must demonstrate all these characteristics of

effectiveness and begin to acquire the skills listed in the outer ring: a broad perspective, a strategic view, and environmental sensitivity. Executives at the highest levels of public

service who are responsible for the accomplishment of broad agency objectives must

demonstrate the full complement of effectiveness characteristics to be most successful.

Clearly, a wide diversity of skills, regardless of how the job is constructed or of the style in which it is executed, will be essential to your success as a manager.

A more recent study by the OPM elaborated the core qualifications expected of the highest-

level government executives, in this case focusing on those characterizing the Senior Executive Service. This study first presented five executive core qualifications: leading

change, leading people, results driven, business acumen, and building coalitions. These

qualifications were complemented by six “competencies”: interpersonal skills, oral

communication skills, integrity or honesty, written communication skills, continual learning, and public service motivation

(http://-w-w-w-.-o-p-m-.-g-o-v-/-s-e-s-/-r-e-c-r-u-i-t-m-e-n-t-/-q-u-a-l-i-f-y-.-a-s-p).

Voices of Public Administrators

Studies such as that of the OPM are helpful in understanding what you need to know and

what you must be able to do to be successful in public administration. But how does it

actually “feel” to work in a public or nonprofit organization? The best way to answer this

question is to let some public servants speak for themselves. Not long ago, we spoke to two

outstanding professionals in the field of public administration about their views of the field

and their feelings about their work. The following accounts are based on those interviews.

Jan C. Perkins served for many years as city manager of Fremont, California. When asked about her motivations for entering the field of public administration, this was her reply:

I was interested in improving the quality of life for all people and increasing the access of

women and minorities. I believed that I could have the most impact by being involved in local

government at a management level.

The most rewarding aspects of my work have been being able to articulate the mission of the

city and focus my resources and efforts in effectively meeting that mission, solving the

problems of residents, and seeing employees grow and develop.

Those considering public service careers should understand that managing in the public

arena is different from that in a private corporation. It requires a commitment to values such as providing quality services for all and dealing with all people on an equal level. It is very

important that people who enter the public service do so with a high standard of ethical

behavior and an ability to deal honestly and directly with all people.

Michael Stahl works for the federal government in the Environmental Protection Agency. He reflected on his motivations for public service:

I entered public service because I viewed (and still do) government as an instrument to solve

social problems. Democratic government can be a tremendous positive force in society, and

in spite of recent political rhetoric and prevailing political ideology, I am convinced that the institutions and programs of government are of vital importance to the nation and that

public service is a noble calling.

If you are considering a career in the public service, take the time to reflect on your motivation for entering the public service, because there are right reasons and wrong

reasons. You are entering for the right reasons if you want to make a contribution to the

solution of social problems, promote democratic values and ethical standards in using the

powers of government, and if the concept of serving the public good is a passion. You are

entering for the wrong reasons if you are looking for public adulation and recognition for

your accomplishments, seeking material or financial rewards as compensation for your hard

work, or expecting to acquire levels of power and change the world according to your own

plan. Those entering for the wrong reasons will be bitterly disappointed. Yet, for those whose passion is to contribute to the public good, government service can represent the single most

satisfying way of translating your passion into ideas and events for improving the quality of

life for scores of people.

Log in to -w-w-w-.-c-e-n-g-a- g-e-.-c-o-m and open CourseReader to access the reading:

Read “Confessions of a Public Service Junkie” and “The Value of Public Service.”

What does this article say about the passions and

commitments that motivate public servants? How important is it to you to “make a difference”?

Obviously, these professionals take very seriously their commitment to serving others. In

making such a commitment, they participate in a long and proud tradition. Indeed, public

service has historically been considered one of the highest callings in our society and has

been even more highly regarded in other countries, such as France and Japan.

Without question, the idea of serving others has enormous appeal, in part because of the

great joy and satisfaction it brings. Those working in public organizations experience almost

daily the rewards of public service.

Why Study Public Administration? Students come to introductory courses in public administration for many different reasons.

Many students recognize the vast array of positions in government (and elsewhere) that

require training in public administration and hope that the course will provide basic

information and skills that will move them toward careers as public or nonprofit managers.

These students seek to understand the field of public administration, but also to sharpen

their own skills as potential administrators. (See the box “Exploring Concepts: Why Study

Public Administration?”)

Exploring Concepts

WHY STUDY PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION?

• To prepare for administrative positions • To combine technical and managerial training

• To help business and government interact

• To influence public organizations as a citizen

Other students, whose interests lie in technical fields as wide-ranging as engineering,

teaching, natural resources, social work, and the fine arts, recognize that at some point in

their careers their jobs may involve management in the public sector. The engineer may

become director of a public works department; the teacher may become school principal; the natural resources expert may be asked to run an environmental quality program; the

social worker may administer a welfare program; or the fine arts major may direct a publicly

supported gallery or museum. In these cases, and others like them, the individual's technical

expertise may need to be complemented by managerial training.

Networking

The National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration is the accrediting

body for programs in public administration and pursues other educational matters. See its

home page at -w-w-w-.-n-a-s-p-a-a-.-o-r-g and see a list of NASPAA-accredited Master of

Public Administration programs at

http://-w-w-w-.-n-a-s-p-a-a-.-o-r-g-/-a-c-c-r-e-d-i-t-a-t-i-o-n-/-N-S-/-r-o-s-t-e-r-.-a-s-p.

Other students may have no expectations whatsoever of working in a public agency, but they

recognize that as corporate executives, as businesspeople, or merely as citizens, they are

likely to be called upon to interact with those in public organizations. Someone who owns a

small business might wish to sell products or services to a city, a county, or some other governmental body; partners in an accounting firm might seek auditing contracts with a local

or state government; or a construction firm might bid on the design and construction of a

new public building. In each case, knowledge of the operations of public agencies would be

not only helpful but essential.

A final group of students, a group overlapping any of the previous three, might simply

recognize the importance of public agencies in the governmental process and the impact of

public organizations on their daily lives. They might wish to acquire the knowledge and skills that would enable them to more effectively analyze and influence public policy. Some will

find the world of public administration a fascinating field of study in its own right and pursue

academic careers in public affairs. Because understanding the motives for studying public

administration will also give us a more complete view of the variety and importance of managerial work in the public sector, we will examine each in greater detail.

Log in to -w-w-w-.-c-e-n-g-a- g-e-.-c-o-m and open CourseReader to access the reading:

Read “The Public Sector as a Career Choice: Antecedents of an Expressed Interest in Working for the Federal Government,” by Dennis Doverspike et al. There are many reasons that people choose to work in public administration, and many of these have to do with their

commitment to public service and their wanting to make a difference in their communities. Others have to do with their personal experiences growing up.

Consider your own motivations and those of your friends. What has stimulated your interest in public administration? Might you consider a career in federal, state, or local government or in a nonprofit organization? What might affect your choice? How important is it to you to make a difference in your community?

Preparing for Administrative Positions

You may be among those who wish to use the introductory public administration course as a stepping-stone to a career in public service. If so, you will find that these careers take many

forms. We sometimes make distinctions among program managers, staff managers, and

policy analysts. Program managers range from the executive level to the supervisory level and

are in charge of particular governmental or nongovernmental programs, such as those in

environmental quality or transportation safety. Their job is to allocate and monitor human,

material, and financial resources to meet the service objectives of their agency. Staff managers,

on the other hand, support the work of program managers through budgeting and financial

management, personnel and labor relations, and purchasing and procurement. Meanwhile, policy analysts provide e important information about existing programs through their

research into the operations and impacts of the programs; moreover, analysts help bring

together information about new programs, assess the possible effects of different courses of action, and suggest new directions for public policy. Managers and analysts may work with

the chief executive, with the legislature, with officials at other levels of government, and with

the public in framing and reframing public programs.

As we will see, the work of public and nonprofit organizations also encompasses a wide

variety of substantive areas. Think for a moment of the range of activities the federal

government engages in. The federal government touches upon nearly every aspect of

American life, from aeronautics, air transportation, and atmospheric sciences; to helping the homeless, juvenile delinquents, and migrant workers; to working with waste management,

wage standards, and water quality. In each area, skilled managers are called upon to develop,

implement, and evaluate government programs. But the work of managers at the federal

level represents only a part of the work of those trained in public administration.

At the state and local levels of government, and in the nonprofit sector, even more

opportunities exist. As we will see in Chapter 2, although there is only one federal

government in this country, there are almost 89,000 state and local governments (these include cities, counties, and special districts) and more than 1.5 million nonprofit

organizations. State and local government employment in this country amounts to almost 15

million persons (compared to under 3 million civilians employed at the federal level), and

nearly 15 million people work for nonprofit organizations.

Obviously, the work of government at the state and local levels is different from that at the

federal level. State and local governments, for example, do not directly provide for the

national defense; however, most have police forces, which the federal government does not

have. There are also other positions at the state and local levels that do not have exact counterparts at the federal level. For example, the president or chancellor of your state

university is a public administrator with significant and unusual responsibilities; the city

manager in a local community is a professional administrator appointed by a city council to manage the various functions of local government.

And public service is not limited to work in government. Beyond employment in federal,

state, or local government, those trained in public administration will find many other

opportunities. Directors of nonprofit organizations at the state and local levels, as well as those in similar associations at the national level, often find that the skills required for their

jobs—skills that combine managerial training with an understanding of the political

system—are the skills developed in public administration courses. Again, to demonstrate the

breadth of these activities, we might note that there are large numbers of nonprofit

associations at the national level alone, ranging from well-known groups such as the

American Medical Association or the American Bar Association, to trade groups such as the

American Frozen Food Institute and the National Association of Bedding Manufacturers, to professional associations such as the American Society for Public Administration and those

representing a particular field of interest, such as the Metropolitan Opera Guild. There is

even an association of association executives: the American Society of Association

Executives. Beyond these groups at the national level, there are numerous nonprofit groups

operating at state and local levels—for example, local United Way organizations, local food

banks, art leagues, or historic preservation groups.

Finally, those with training in public administration may work in a private corporation's

public affairs division. Because of the increasing interaction across private, public, and

nongovernmental sectors, corporations and nonprofit organizations often need special

assistance in tracking legislation, developing and monitoring government contracts, and influencing the legislative or regulatory process. Thus, the combination of managerial and

political skills possessed by someone with training in public administration can be highly

valuable. The career possibilities in the field of public administration are seemingly endless.

Combining Technical and Managerial Training

Many students seek positions in public service as a primary career objective, whereas many

others see the possibility of work in public administration as secondary, but nonetheless

important, to their main field of interest. As noted, the work of government spans many areas; consequently, the people who work for government (one out of every six people in

this country) come from a wide variety of professional backgrounds. There are engineers

who work in the Defense Department and for NASA at the federal level, in state highway

departments, and in local public works departments. People interested in natural resources may work for the U.S. Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency, in state

conservation departments, and in local parks departments. Medical personnel may work for

the Veterans Administration or the National Institute for Mental Health, for state health

departments, and for local hospitals and health offices.

Governments at all levels hire social workers, planners, personnel specialists, accountants,

lawyers, biologists, law enforcement officers, educators, researchers, recreation specialists,

and agricultural specialists, just to mention a few. To illustrate the magnitude of federal government employment, over 725,000 work in national defense and foreign affairs, over

700,000 people work in the postal service, 340,000 are employed in health care, and 124,000

financial administrators work for the federal government

(http://-w-w-w-2-.-c-e-n-s-u-s-.-g-o-v-/-g-o-v-s-/-a-p-e-s-/-0-9-f-e-d-f-u-n-.-p-d-f).

As mentioned earlier, people who have worked for some time within a technical field in a

public organization are often promoted to managerial positions. A surgeon may become chief

of surgery, a water pollution specialist may be asked to direct a pollution control project, or

a teacher may become a school principal. Despite having started out in a technical field, these individuals find themselves in a managerial position; they are public administrators. Some

people may desire promotion to a managerial position; others may not. (There are some

jurisdictions in which continued advancement practically requires moving into an

administrative position.) But whatever one's motivation, the new administrator soon

discovers a completely new world of work. Now the most pressing questions are not the

technical ones, but rather those having to do with management, with program planning and

design, with supervision and motivation, and with balancing scarce resources. Often the

situation is quite bewildering; it's almost as if one has been asked to change professions in midcareer from technical expert to public manager.

So many people from technical fields find themselves in managerial positions in the public

sector that many of them seek training in public administration. For this reason, it is no

longer unusual for students majoring in technical fields to take courses in public administration or for students to combine undergraduate training in a technical field with

graduate training in public administration (even at midcareer). This, then, is a second reason

for studying public administration: to prepare for the eventuality that work in a technical

field of interest might lead you to a managerial position in the public sector.

Interaction of Business and Government

Even for students who never work for a public agency of any type, understanding the

processes of policy formulation and implementation can be enormously helpful. One of the most important trends in American society is the increasing interaction of business and

government. Clearly, the decisions of government affect the environment in which business

operates, but government also specifically regulates many businesses and, of course, serves

as the biggest single customer of business.

Those in business recognize that governmental decisions affect the economic climate. Most

obvious are the effects of governmental decisions at the federal level. Consider, for example,

the impact of government economic pronouncements on the stock market. State and local

governments, however, also affect the business climate. The governors of many states have

begun major campaigns to attract industry to their states, providing not only information

and advice but also specific incentives for plants and industries that might relocate. Similar

activities are being undertaken in more and more local communities, as cities recognize that they are in competition for economic development. At a minimum, business recognizes that

the political climate of any locality directly affects the area's economic climate.

But the influence of government on business is more specific. At the federal level, major

regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, provide specific guidelines in which certain businesses must operate.

Moreover, requirements of agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration restrict the operations of business so as to

ensure the quality of air and water and the safety of working conditions. Similarly, at the state level, some agencies directly regulate specific businesses, while others act more

generally to prevent unfair or unsafe practices. Even at the local level, through licensing and

zoning practices, public organizations directly regulate business practice.

Government is also important as a consumer of business products and services. At the

federal level, over $550 billion is spent each year on goods and services; in the Department

of Defense alone, the figure is over $354 billion per year

(http://-w-w-w-.-c-e-n-s-u-s-.-g-o-v-/-p-r-o-d-/-2-0-1-0-p-u-b-s-/-c-f-f-r---0-9-.-p-d-f). Business is attentive to its customers, so it is not surprising that business is attentive to

government!

For all these reasons, people in business are becoming increasingly aware of the need to

understand in detail the work of government—how policies are made, how they are implemented, and how they may be influenced. Not only are more and more businesses

developing public affairs offices to specialize in governmental operations, track policy

developments, and attempt to influence policy, but they are also placing a greater premium

on having executives at all levels who understand how government agencies operate. Even if you plan a career in business, understanding the work of public organizations is an

essential part of your training.

Influencing Public Organizations

Any of the motives for studying public administration we have discussed so far may bring

you to an introductory course. There is, however, another more general reason you may wish

to study public administration: to understand one important aspect of the governmental

process so you can deal effectively with public issues that directly affect your life. We are all affected by the work of governmental and nongovernmental organizations, so it is helpful,

and sometimes even essential, to understand the operations of these organizations.

We have become so accustomed to the pervasiveness of public service and the range of its

influence that we sometimes forget just how often our lives are touched by public and

nonprofit organizations. Imagine a typical day: We wake up in the morning to the sounds of

a commercially regulated radio station or National Public Radio coming over a patented and

Federal Communications Commission-registered clock radio operating on power supplied by either a government-regulated power company or a public utility. We brush our teeth

with toothpaste produced under a government patent and trust that it has been judged safe

(if not effective) by a federal agency. We use municipally operated water and sewer systems

without thinking of the complexity of their operation. We dress in clothes produced under governmental restrictions and eat food prepared in accordance with government

regulations and inspected by the government. We drive on a public highway, following

government-enforced traffic laws, to a university substantially funded by federal, state, and

sometimes local dollars to study from books copyrighted and catalogued by the Library of Congress. Though the day has hardly begun, our lives already have been touched by public

organizations in a multitude of ways.

The importance of public administration in daily life is tremendous; consequently, the

decisions made by governmental and nongovernmental officials (and not just elected

officials) can affect us directly. Imagine, for example, that one day you discover that the loan

program that is helping to finance your college education is being reviewed and will likely

be revised in such a way that you will no longer be eligible for funding. In this case, you might

well want to take some action to maintain your eligibility. Obviously, knowing something about the operations of government agencies, especially some of the ways administrative

decisions can be influenced, would be of great help.

As citizens affected by the public service, understanding the operations of public and

nonprofit organizations is helpful; it is even more important if one becomes personally involved in some aspect of the governmental process. For those reading this book, such

involvement is actually rather likely. Indeed, if you are a college graduate, regardless of your

major or field of interest, chances are quite good that at some point in your life you will

engage in some kind of formal governmental activity. You may be elected to local, state, or national office; you may be asked to serve on a board or commission; or your advice

concerning government operations in your area may be sought in other ways. You may also

become involved in the work of nonprofit organizations or charities in your local community.

In any of these cases, a thorough knowledge of the structure and processes of public

organizations, both government and nonprofit organizations, will be of great importance.

Finally, those who are interested in understanding the work of public or nonprofit

organizations may indeed find the field of public administration interesting from a more academic standpoint: studying and commenting on the operations of government and

nonprofit organizations contribute to our understanding of the process of policy

development and support the work of those in public organizations. The opportunities for

academic careers in public administration, positions involving teaching and research, are many, and you may find yourself drawn to those opportunities. Even here, however, one

begins with a concern for action.

What Would You Do?

You are the executive director of the Parents Anonymous organization in your area. Your organization is devoted to preventing child abuse and strengthening families. Recently one

of your traditional sources of funding was terminated. You are faced with the prospect of

reducing staff (and services) or coming up with new revenues. What would you do?

Making Things Happen

Of the many reasons to learn about public and nonprofit organizations, one theme seems to

tie together the various interests: an interest in making things happen. Whether you are

preparing for a career in the public sector with the possibility that you might someday manage a public agency, or simply preparing to influence the course of public policy and its

implementation as it directly affects you or your business, your interest is in taking action

and influencing what goes on in public and nonprofit organizations. It's one thing to gain

knowledge of the field in the abstract, but most students want to learn those things that will

make them more effective actors in the governmental process. Some of the more prominent

actors are discussed in the box “Public Administration in History: Public Service: A

Distinguished Profession.”

Public Administration in History

PUBLIC SERVICE: A DISTINGUISHED PROFESSION

For my part, when I think of government service, in uniform and out, I think of individual men and women of genuine distinction who have served this country over the years and also

of the amazing diversity of a service that can range from defending our borders to delivering

our mail, curing disease to exploring outer space. I was looking at a civil service publication

the other day containing an alphabetical list of well-known employees through the years “and found it began with a career civil servant named Neil Armstrong who went on TDY

(temporary duty) to the moon” and concluded several pages later with Walt Whitman, the

poet, who worked in the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Attorney [General's office]. How's that for diversity? Incidentally, the group also included four Nobel Prize winners and

several important inventors, including Alexander Graham Bell, who among his other

associations worked for the Census Bureau. There also were some other familiar names of

people who shared your proud profession: Clara Barton, Washington Irving, Abraham Lincoln, Charles Lindbergh, Knute Rockne, Harry Truman, and James Whistler, to name but

a few.

In my own experience, as one who served the federal government for some years, I look back

on those periods as among the most exciting, challenging, and thoroughly demanding in life. I have often said, and still say, that I never worked harder than I did in my years as a public

servant. I worked alongside some of the finest, most competent, thoroughly committed

people I have ever known. I realize this does not comport with everything that you read in

the papers or see on television, but I never miss a chance to point it out. My own experience

in government left me with an abiding respect for the men and women who serve this nation

as public employees.

SOURCE: Norman R. Augustine, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Martin Marietta Corporation, Address to the Federal Executive Board, Denver, Colorado, April 26, 1989.

Text provided by the Council for Excellence in Government, Washington, D.C.

This book is geared toward action, toward how to make things happen in public service. Our

perspective will be that of the actor, not the scholar, although an understanding of the world of administrative action is the basis for good scholarship as well. Action first requires a base

of knowledge; there are certain things that you simply need to know about government and

the administrative process to be effective. There are also value questions that must be settled in the course of making and carrying out public decisions. And, finally, there are both

technical and interpersonal skills you must acquire to be effective in working with others in

your chosen field. Selecting an action orientation, therefore, commits you to emphasizing all

three areas: the knowledge, values, and skills that will help you to become more effective and

responsible in your work with “real-life” public organizations.

Issues in Public Administration Theory and Practice Throughout the chapters to come, our primary emphasis will be on action—those things that

real-world actors do to be successful in public and nonprofit organizations. But action never

stands alone. Without some degree of reflection, action is sterile and unguided. For this reason, we will outline two themes that have traditionally characterized work in public

organizations and that continue to be of great importance today. As such, these themes—of

politics and administration and of bureaucracy and democracy—provide a part of the

intellectual and practical context of public administration. Although our purpose is to simply introduce these two themes, we suggest that they are most often manifest in contemporary

public administration as a tension between efficiency and responsiveness. This tension is

absolutely central to the work of public administrators today, and we will return to it

frequently in our discussions of administrative action.

Politics and Administration

Even though the supposed dichotomy between politics and administration is one of the

oldest issues in public administration, it continues to hold great relevance for administrators today. You will recall that an early essay by Woodrow Wilson framed the initial study of

public administration in this country. In addition to emphasizing businesslike practices,

Wilson was concerned with isolating the processes of administration from the potentially

corrupting influences of politics. He wrote, “Administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics. Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets the tasks

for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices” (Wilson, 1887, p. 210).

In other words, although policies were to be debated and decided by politicians, they were to be carried out by a politically neutral, professional bureaucracy. In this way, the everyday

conduct of government would be isolated from the potentially corrupting influence of

politics.

Other early writers joined Wilson in talking, at least analytically, about the distinction between politics (or policy) and administration. More practical reformers went further,

creating governmental forms, such as the council-manager plan for local government, that

were based on a separation of policy and administration. As we will see later, in this form of

government, the council presumably makes the policy and the city manager carries it out. The council is engaged in politics (or policy) and the manager in administration.

Over the first few decades of this century, however, the distinction between policy and

administration was increasingly broken down, even in council-manager governments.

Managers found that they had expertise that was needed by policy makers and began to be

drawn into the policy process. By about the middle of the century, Paul Appleby of Syracuse

University would write simply, “Public administration is policy-making” (Appleby, 1949, p.

170).

The increasing involvement of administrators in the policy process was in part attributable

to the fact that the operations of government—and in contemporary society, of nonprofit

organizations—were becoming more complex, and the technical and professional skills

needed to operate public agencies were dramatically increasing. As people with such skills and expertise became a part of public organizations, they were inevitably called upon to

present their views. At the same time, the legislative branches of government (at all levels)

found it difficult to be knowledgeable about every detail of government and, consequently,

were forced to rely more and more on the expertise of those in public agencies. Additionally, the complexity of government meant that legislative bodies often found it necessary to state

laws in general terms, leaving those within government agencies with considerable

discretion to interpret those laws as they saw fit and, therefore, make policy daily.

Ensuring Accountability The acknowledgment of the interaction of politics and

administration does not make the question of their relationship any easier. If public

administrators make policy, how can we be sure that the policies they make are

responsible to the people (as we would expect in a democratic society)? Presumably, legislators must be at least somewhat responsive, or, come the next election, they will

no longer be legislators. But what of administrators?

What Would You Do?

You have served three years as head of your state's human services agency. In general, your

relationship with the governor has been quite good, and your relationship with the

legislature (which is dominated by the governor's party) has been congenial as well.

Recently, however, there has been a move in the legislature to reduce funding for a child-

care program you think is essential to finding and maintaining employment for women on welfare. What would you do?

Traditionally, the answer was that the administrators were accountable to the legislators,

who, in turn, were accountable to the people. But even that argument is somewhat tricky

today. Those in public and nonprofit agencies do indeed both work with and report to legislatures (or boards), but they also shape public opinion through the information they

provide. They mobilize for support inside and outside government and bargain with a variety

of public and private groups. To a certain extent, they act as independent agents.

For this reason, more contemporary discussions of accountability (which we will elaborate on in Chapter 4) place an emphasis on measures that would supplement accountability to

the legislature by either seeking a strong subjective sense of responsibility on the part of

administrators or by providing structural controls to ensure responsibility. As we will see, some people have tried to assert professional standards in public and nonprofit

organizations, while others have developed codes of ethics and standards of professional

practice. Others have sought greater legislative involvement in the administrative process or

more substantial legislative review. Still others have described mechanisms such as public

participation in the administrative process or surveys of public opinion that would bring the

administrator in closer alignment with the sentiments of the citizenry (something we will discuss further in Chapter 11).

The relationship between politics (or policy) and administration will be a theme that recurs

throughout the remainder of this book. Although the classic dichotomy between politics and

administration has become less distinct as the role of public administrators in the policy process has become more apparent, the question of the relationship between politics and

administration remains central, simply because it goes to the heart of what public

administration is all about. If public organizations differ from other organizations in our

society, that difference must surely rest in the way public organizations participate in and respond to the public interest. But that issue merely leads us to another: the relationship

between bureaucracy and democracy.

Bureaucracy and Democracy

A second theme that grew from early discussions of public administration had to do with the

potential for conflict between democracy and bureaucracy. Let's start once again with

democracy. One writer has defined the moral commitments of a democracy in terms of three

standards. First, democratic principles assume that the individual is the primary measure of human value and that the development of the individual is the primary goal of a democratic

political system. Second, democratic morality suggests that all persons are created equal—

that differences in wealth, status, or position should not give one person or group an

advantage over another. Third, democratic morality emphasizes widespread participation

among the citizens in the making of major decisions (Redford, 1969, p. 8).

Set against these tenets of democracy are the ideals of bureaucratic management. The early

scholars and practitioners in public administration were, of course, writing at a time when businesses were growing rapidly and beginning to use more complicated technologies and

new ways of organizing appropriate to those technologies. To some extent the public sector

looked to the field of business for models of organization. It found that the growth of large-

scale business had led to the development of large and complex bureaucratic organizations, organizations that were built around values quite different from those of democracy.

(Although the term bureaucracy is often used in a pejorative sense, as in “bureaucratic red

tape,” we will use it here in its more neutral and scientific sense: as a way of organizing work.)

Consequently, the bureaucratic model of organizing was brought into the public sector.

The values of bureaucracy included first the need to bring together the work of many

individuals in order to achieve purposes far beyond the capabilities of any single individual.

Second, bureaucratic systems were to be structured hierarchically, with those at the top

having far greater power and discretion than those at the bottom. Third, bureaucratic

organization generally assumes that power and authority flow from the top of the

organization to the bottom rather than the other way around. (We will examine the concept

of bureaucracy in greater detail in Chapter 5.)

In contrast to the democratic value of individuality, there stood the bureaucratic value of the

group or organization; in contrast to the democratic values of equality, there stood the

bureaucratic hierarchy; and in contrast to the democratic values of participation and

involvement, there stood the bureaucratic value of top-down decision making and authority.

How these values were to be reconciled became a difficult issue for early scholars and

practitioners in the field of public administration, as it continues to be today. A variety of

questions are raised. For example, is it proper for a democratic government to carry out its

work through basically authoritarian organizations? The key issue turns out to be an emphasis on efficiency as the sole measure of agency success.

Efficiency versus Responsiveness

Those in public administration have long wrestled with the issues of politics and administration and of democracy and bureaucracy. Public and increasingly nonprofit

managers have begun to experience these tensions more frequently in the day-to-day

problems they face in terms of efficiency versus responsiveness. Indeed, in a sense, the two

earlier issues seem to have dissolved into the single issue of efficiency versus responsiveness. On the one hand, there is the hope that public and nonprofit organizations

will operate in the most efficient way possible, getting things done quickly and at the least

cost to taxpayers and donors. On the other hand, public managers must be constantly

attentive to the demands of the citizenry, whether those demands are expressed through the

chief executive, through the legislature, or directly.

A practical and contemporary expression of this difficulty is presented in case study number

5 at the end of the chapter. (You might want to read it now.) The case relates a dispute that

arose in the course of developing a new housing loan program. Although the case presents

several different issues, most students reviewing the case focus their attention on the

different interpretations that John and Carol have of their work. At first glance, John appears

to be solely interested in doing things efficiently, while Carol appears to be much more concerned with responding to the needs of the client group. The case appears to be a classic

illustration of the tension between efficiency and responsiveness, and indeed it is. But at a

deeper level, the case also illustrates how complex the issues really are. You might say, for

example, that John was trying to be efficient in response to the demands of those clients who had been waiting for their loans to be processed. You might also say that Carol, through her

educational efforts, was helping to ensure a more efficient, long-term operation.

The main point, of course, is that in public organizations, you may frequently encounter

difficulties in reconciling efficiency and responsiveness. A key to resolving the ethical

questions raised in situations such as that faced by John and Carol is (1) understanding the

various moral values represented on each side of the equation and then (2) engaging in

ethical deliberation (and perhaps dialogue) to arrive at a proper approach to the problem. Interestingly enough, in this particular case, the real-life characters represented by John and

Carol got together and talked through the differences in their respective approaches. The

result was a course of action they both agreed on, one they felt met their obligations to be

both efficient and responsive. In the real world, dialogue sometimes works!

To summarize this point, the themes of politics and administration and of bureaucracy and

democracy have marked much of the history of the field of public administration. Today

these themes seem often to manifest in the tension between efficiency and responsiveness.

Are public agencies to concentrate only on creating the desired outcomes in the most efficient manner possible? Or should such agencies be responsive to the public interest and

the public will, even though the public interest and the public will may not have been

explicitly articulated by elected officials, especially those in the legislature? Time after time,

you'll find evidence of this tension in discussions on public policy, human resources

management, budgeting and financial management, and so on. The tension between

efficiency and responsiveness remains an “unsolved mystery” of public administration. But

perhaps for that reason, it is a tension that helps make public administration such a fascinating and dynamic field.

Summary and Action Implications As noted, our focus in this book is on the individual administrator or the individual citizen

seeking to influence public policy through the agencies of government or through other public and nongovernmental organizations. We consider in some detail the institutions,

processes, and techniques required for work in the public and nonprofit sectors. But, most

importantly, we examine the “real world” of public administration, the world as experienced

by the administrator.

That world, as we have seen, is one for which you will need to develop certain capabilities to

operate effectively and responsibly. Among these we include an understanding of the

institutions and processes of government; an appreciation of the values underlying public service; technical skills in such areas as program design, budgeting, and personnel;

interpersonal skills in communications, leadership, and decision making; and a capacity to

“put it all together” to integrate knowledge, skills, and values appropriately.

Ideally, in studying the issues discussed in this book, you will develop a good sense of the

political context of public administration; a sound understanding of your role in both policy

development and policy implementation; a sensitivity to the moral and ethical questions

inherent in the notion of public service; technical competence in areas such as planning and

program development, budgeting, personnel, and performance management; facility with interpersonal relationships (including leadership, decision making, and communications);

and the self-confidence and self-awareness to act effectively and responsibly in real-life

situations. Though public administration in the abstract sometimes appears lifeless and

remote, the real world of the practicing public administrator is a quite lively and interesting

place, filled with challenging problems and unique opportunities.

STUDY QUESTIONS Discuss some of the career opportunities available to those trained in public

administration.

• “One of the most important trends in American society is the increasing interaction

of business and government.” This quotation signals the need for better recognition

and understanding of the interactions between business and government. Discuss the

importance of this interaction and why a clear understanding of the relationship between the public and private sector is necessary.

• The differences between public administration and business management are

profound. Explain how the two fields are alike and how they differ. Why are the two

terms not interchangeable? • How did early scholars, such as Woodrow Wilson, view the role of public

administration in a democracy?

• The term democracy can be interpreted in a variety of ways. What significant concepts helped form the democratic society within which American government operates?

• What is the role of “publicness” in defining the work of public and nonprofit

managers?

CASES AND EXERCISES • Interview a public administrator. Locate one or more people who work as managers

or analysts in a public or nonprofit organization and interview them. The

interviewees might work for a public university, local government, state or federal agency, or nonprofit organization. They might be a university administrator, a city

manager or department director (public works or parks and recreation), a county

official (such as a county clerk), a manager in state government (perhaps someone in a welfare office or a highway department), a federal government manager (in a local

office of a department such as Social Security, Agriculture, or the Federal Aviation

Administration), or someone who works in a local, state, or national nonprofit

association. They might be a program manager, a staff manager, or a policy analyst.

• Ask the people you interview to describe their jobs, including the range of

responsibilities they have and the knowledge, values, and skills that are important to

them in their work. The following are some examples of questions you might want to

ask:

o Describe the work you do and how you came to this position. What is your

educational and work background?

o What impact does the work you do have on the community/state/nation/and

so on?

o What do you find different or unusual about working in a public organization?

How do you think your job compares to other jobs at a comparable level in business or industry?

o What knowledge, values, and skills are important to your work? For instance,

if you were hiring someone to take your place, what would you look for?

• Consider the following case. As an administrative assistant in the Department of Finance of a midsize suburban community, you are asked by the director to contract

with an accounting firm to audit the books of the ten major city departments. You

develop a request for bids, advertise in the local newspaper, and send written notices

to all the local accounting firms. In response, you receive five proposals, four from local firms and one from a Big Eight accounting firm based in a nearby city. The

proposals are essentially the same with respect to cost and expected quality of work.

However, one firm, Jones and Denham, appears to have considerably more

experience, having done similar audits locally in the past. Having gathered all the

information you feel you need to make a decision, you make an appointment to report

to the director early Tuesday morning. At lunch on Monday, however, a friend who

knows you are working on the auditing contract casually mentions that a certain Mr. Howard of the Firm T. P. Howard and Co. is the brother-in-law of the mayor. T. P.

Howard and Co. is one of the five firms that have submitted bids for the auditing

contract. Later that afternoon, you receive a call from the mayor, asking for a report

on the auditing contract. What do you say to the mayor? What do you recommend be done about the contract? What does this case say about the relationship between

business and government?

• Consider the following case. There wasn't much that David Wood couldn't do. He was

an excellent teacher, a dedicated scholar, and a good department chair. He had been

called to the chancellor's office to comment on a new curriculum proposal, one his

faculty and he had discussed, and one they firmly opposed. The chancellor began the

meeting by commenting on the excellent administrative work that David had been doing and on the possibility that he might be considered for a deanship that was

opening up soon. David had always wanted to be a dean. He voiced very mild

objection to the curriculum proposal and then promised to try to convince his faculty

to support it.

• Moving from an academic position into an administrative position or from any

technical position into an administrative position puts you in a different world, one

with greater complexity and different pressures. What are some of the factors that affect those holding managerial jobs as opposed to technical jobs?

• Consider the following case. Recently fraternities and sororities at a major mid-

western university were informed that the property tax classification for their houses

was being changed from “residential” to “commercial,” a change that would increase

the assessed values of the properties from 19 percent to 32 percent and would cost

the Greek houses thousands of dollars in new taxes. The Greeks felt the change was

inappropriate because, as one member stated, “There's not a fraternity or sorority on

campus that makes a profit.” On the other hand, a county official pointed out that the houses contain more than “four dwelling units,” as the law describes it. Moreover,

fraternities and sororities are probably not residential enterprises and are definitely

not agricultural ones (as specified in the law), so they are relegated to the third “catch-

all” category, “commercial and all others.”

• If you were advising the Greek organizations as to how they might seek relief, what

would you recommend? What kind of action should they take? Where should an

appeal originate? How might it proceed?

• As you consider the following case, remember the discussion under “Efficiency versus Responsiveness” earlier in this chapter. John Taylor and Carol Langley worked for a

local, nonprofit community development agency. Following a rather massive

reorganization of the agency in which a number of new programs were taken on, John was asked to supervise a new housing loan program and Carol was asked to assist

him. The program was designed to provide low-interest loans to people in

rehabilitating housing in certain parts of the city. Although John and Carol had

experience in related areas, neither was familiar with this particular program. To make matters worse, seminars to provide help in establishing such programs had

been held some months earlier. John and Carol were simply given a manual and told

to begin.

• The program involved a number of new activities and took considerable time to set up. For example, it was necessary to train new housing inspectors to coordinate their

inspection activities with those provided by the city government, and relationships

had to be established with the other public and nonprofit agencies that would provide information about the applicants being processed.

• John soon began receiving considerable pressure to complete the processing of the

first group of applications within a brief period of time. For one thing, the first group

of applicants consisted of some forty people who had originally applied for other programs but had been turned down. Because their applications had been on file in

the agency for as long as one year, they were quite anxious to have their applications

processed quickly. Initial visits and phone calls from several of the applicants made

John quite aware of their feelings. In addition, however, John knew that this particular

loan program would have a significant impact on the community and that,

consequently, his doing an efficient job under these difficult circumstances would be

important both to the agency and to his own future in public service.

• Carol recognized the necessity to do the work as quickly as possible, but she also felt

a special obligation to the applicants themselves. She took seriously the agency

director's comment that the agency could use this opportunity to help “educate” the

applicants about the procedures involved in such projects. She felt it was very important to check periodically on the inspections, cost estimates, loan amounts,

financial information, and terms and conditions of the loans. Unlike John, who spent

most of his time in the office, she talked frequently with the applicants, many of whom she knew personally from her previous position in the agency.

• For each applicant, John and Carol were to accumulate a complete file of information

about the financial status and rehabilitation project the applicant had in mind. This

file was to be received and signed by the applicant, then forwarded to the federal regional office of HUD for further action.

• John felt the process could be completed more quickly if Carol would simply get the

applicants to sign a blank set of forms that could be kept at the office. When

information was received regarding a loan, the appropriate items could be entered on the signed forms, bypassing the time involved reviewing each form with the

applicant. Also, this procedure would eliminate the often lengthy process of

coordinating several office visits to discuss the material.

• When John asked Carol to obtain the signed forms, she refused. Not only was she

concerned that the applicants see and understand the materials before signing, but

she was also afraid that getting people to sign blank forms might be illegal. When she

talked with John's supervisor about the request, she was told that the procedure was

not illegal and had been used before by people in the regional office. Do you agree

with John or Carol? Why? What should happen next?