PLSC 350- PUBLIC SERVICE

ADMINISTRATION

Lecturer’s Notes 5

Constraints on Managers:
Organizational Culture and
Environment
September 16, 2021
 COMMON ISSUES IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Common issues in the Public Sector:

Management problems.

Instances of improvement in management practices over the years.

Management problems persist in spite of efforts to overcome them.

COMMON ISSUES IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Characteristics in the public service environment make it

difficult for managers to focus on productive management.

To concentrate on economy, efficiency and effectiveness and

ensure that satisfactory results are achieved at reasonable
cost.

The growth of public expenditures and the size of the

government deficit have become public concerns.
COMMON ISSUES IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Pressures to improve services without increasing the size of the

budget.

More productive management has been suggested as one way

to provide the same or an even better level of services with
fewer public funds.

There’s widespread interest in achieving greater value for

money, governments have found it difficult to achieve this goal.
COMMON ISSUES IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Different approaches have been tried in various countries, with mixed results.

There appear to be significant gaps in understanding management problems,

their underlying causes and how to overcome them in public service
organizations.

Many public service executives state that they indicated that undue
constraints stand in the way of achieving greater value for money in the
public service.
 CONSTRAINTS IN THE PS

These include:

1. The impact of political priorities on the management process.

2. The degree of administrative procedures with which managers have to

cope.

3. The disincentives to productive management that are characteristic of

the public service.
CONSTRAINTS IN THE PS

In some cases, these constraints seem to be more the

perception of managers than the reality of the
situation.

Certain constraints are part of the nature of

government and may be very difficult to change.
 These three constraints shape the management environment
of the public service and that they have a significant impact on
attempts to improve productive management.

Effects of constraints on productive management in the

public service:

1. Achievement of value for money is generally accorded a low

priority;

2. Managers are frustrated and lack motivation when it comes

to making productivity improvements.
CONSTRAINTS IN THE PS

If some of these constraints were recognized and

modified, and if a deliberate effort were made to
establish an environment that encourages managers
to achieve satisfactory results at reasonable cost,
significant improvements could be made in achieving
value for money.
 MIS-MANAGEMENT OF
FUNDS IN THE PS

For a number of years, comprehensive audits of

government departments and agencies have reported
cases where managers have not demonstrated due
regard for value for money.

There have been conscientious efforts to overcome

these weaknesses.
 MEASURES
IMPLEMENTED

Departments have installed control systems,

measurement systems.

There are reporting systems to assist good managers

and to prevent poor ones from mismanaging.

Still, audits showed that satisfactory achievement of

value for money was elusive.
 MANAGEMENT AND
CONTROL SYSTEMS
Observations over the last few years suggest that the best
management systems and controls devised for government
will not overcome the fundamental problems.

Unless and until there is real desire and commitment on the

part of decision makers at all levels - the will, both in
Parliament and in the Government - to create an
environment in which public service managers have the
necessary means and incentives for achieving economic,
efficient and effective management of public funds and
resources.
 MANAGEMENT AND
CONTROL SYSTEMS

Productive management, means management that

achieves value for money. That is to say, management
that ensures economic, efficient and effective use of
public funds and resources - management that
produces satisfactory results at reasonable cost.
 WHAT CAUSES
CONSTRAINTS?
There is, no single cause to which these constraints can be
attributed.

The nature of government everywhere seems to be such that

constraints to productive management keep emerging almost
inadvertently and steadily over time.

This is the case in all public services examined.

Such constraints are being overcome only in organizations where

a sustained and concentrated effort is being made to do so.
 3 CONSTRAINTS THAT IMPACT
POLITICAL PRIORITIES

Constraints to productive management exist in any large,

complex organization. However, public service executives
identified three constraints that in the public service
particularly deflect attention from productive management.
They are:

1. The impact of political priorities on the achievement of

productive management;

2. The many administrative and procedural constraints with

which management is burdened; and

3. The few incentives, but many disincentives, which influence

productive management.
THE IMPACT OF POLITICAL PRIORITIES ON
THE ACHIEVEMENT OF PRODUCTIVE
MANAGEMENT 


The consensus of public service executives is that political priorities have a significant
impact on productive management.

The political process has concerns that tend to overshadow and, to some extent, displace
productive management.

An important concern of the political process is to gain public support, and such support
is principally achieved through the announcement of policy initiatives and new programs.

Politicians rarely get elected for concentrating on productive management of

departmental operations. "There are no votes in good management.
THE IMPACT OF POLITICAL PRIORITIES ON
THE ACHIEVEMENT OF PRODUCTIVE
MANAGEMENT 


Attempts to improve value for money in the public

service should not be abandoned just because politics
and public administration are not easily separated.

To minimize the dilemma, constant and deliberate

balancing efforts are required.
 GOOD GOVERNMENT VS
GOOD MANAGEMENT
Good government is not necessarily good management.

In the public service, good government is not necessarily seen by the majority
of executives as the same as good management.

The staffing process is often given as an example. As part of good government,

more and more requirements are seen as being added to the staffing process to
ensure the public service is accessible, equitable and representative.

These, and other causes, make the staffing process such that it is now seen by
managers as a considerable constraint to productive management.
MANAGEMENT FEELS UNDULY CONSTRAINED BY
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND
CONFLICTING ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS 


The second significant constraint to achieving more productive

management, according to the managers interviewed, is the body of
administrative regulations and the conflicting accountability
requirements that limit managerial authority and autonomy.

The majority of public service executives indicated they would be

able to manage more productively if there were fewer and less
detailed regulations.

They insisted that many regulations entail extra staff, which adds to
the cost of government.

They also noted, however, that there are considerable differences in

the ability and willingness of managers to deal effectively with
constraints.
MANAGEMENT FEELS UNDULY CONSTRAINED BY
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND
CONFLICTING ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS 


The effective discharge of management responsibilities depends

very much on the total climate within which managers must
function.

One wonders if managers can get on with their essential role,

which is to manage the effective and efficient delivery of services
to citizens through their employees, if their flexibility to manage
is restricted and if the myriad of complex government
procedures and regulations is not modified to reflect the
practical aspects of delivery of services.
 CONSTRAINT ON
MANAGERS
Managers' authority is constrained. Executives point
out that the burden of regulations is particularly
constraining in the following areas:

1. The authority to select and hire staff;

2. The flexibility to develop practices uniquely suited

to local conditions;

3. The discretion to choose an optimum mix of

resources for maximum productivity.
 CONSTRAINT ON
MANAGERS

When constraints become a spider's web of rules,

regulations, directives, prohibitions and controls,
managers lose sight of value-for-money concerns.
 THERE ARE FEW INCENTIVES FOR
PRODUCTIVE MANAGEMENT, BUT
MANY DISINCENTIVES

The third significant constraint, according to the public service

managers interviewed, is the lack of incentives and the number of
disincentives which influence productive management in the public
service.

In private sector organizations, the need to produce goods and

services the public will buy but still be efficient enough to make a
profit is the ultimate incentive to be cost-effective.

In the public service, this "bottom line" does not exist, despite
attempts to use program evaluation as a bottom-line substitute.
Consequently, the basic attitudes that lead to continual attempts at
improving productivity are scarce.
 INCENTIVES

Innovative and productive management in the public service is not generally due to
effective incentives. Rather, it results from exceptionally motivated managers. Such
individuals take pride in doing things to a standard of excellence and act on the personal
conviction that achieving value for money is an important aspect of their managerial
function.

Incentives are usually seen in terms of direct extra compensation for outstanding
achievements, including performance pay and bonuses. And research confirms that
monetary incentives do have an important role to play. But incentives and rewards
could also take the form of extra pension credits, sabbaticals, educational assignments,
particularly interesting projects, greater job autonomy, especially attractive working
environments, or recognition through some sort of public award for high achievers. At
present, the public service provides few incentives to encourage its managers to strive
for greater value for money.
 DISINCENTIVES

1. The lower level of prestige associated with managing operations

compared with giving policy advice;

2. The higher risk of causing public embarrassment - and being

penalized - as a line manager compared with being a staff specialist;

3. The expectation of having to reconcile conflicting demands that

exceed the manager's authority;

4. The requirement to reduce resources when funds seem to be wasted

elsewhere;

5. Absence of recognition and reward for productive management.

 DISINCENTIVES

There is some stigma attached to "lapsing" funds at the end of a fiscal year, because this may be taken as an
indication of a manager's inability to budget properly, and could reduce budget levels in future years. This is
a disincentive to "return" non-essential funds and an incentive to spend them, whether value for money is
obtained or not.

Across-the-board budget cuts are imposed equally on cost-conscious managers and those with "padding" in
their budget. This discourages managers from running a lean operation.

Factors affecting managerial job grades comprise size of budget (including salary budget), impact of
decisions and similar measures. This represents a disincentive for managers to economize and to keep
operations small.

The difficulty of removing unsatisfactory staff is a disincentive to resolving performance problems. It is, on
the other hand, an incentive for hiring additional staff to compensate for existing inadequacies.

Government-wide administrative regulations for such things as travel, contracting and acquisition of
supplies can create inefficiencies for individual departments. The time and effort needed to request
exceptions is a disincentive for managers to do something about the additional costs such regulations can
cause.
 4 COMPONENTS FOR
PRODUCTIVE MANAGEMENT
Governments should develop and initiate activities to
make productive management a key priority. This should
comprise four components:

1. Encourage and support productive management.

2. Reduce disincentives, increase managerial authority and

clarify account-ability.

3. Emphasize the development of managers.

4. Support experiments to improve productive

management.
END OF LECTURER’S
NOTES 5