Lipa City Colleges

Graduate School
GRADUATE SCHOOL

COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION

Master in Public Administration

General Directions:

1. The Comprehensive examination has two (2) Case studies and three (3)
theoretical questions.

1.1. For Case Study, answer the following case discussion questions right
after each case, and make a case analysis using the case analysis outline attached.

1.2. For theoretical questions, answer each question given. Please refer
to the attached rubrics.

2. The examination will be uploaded in WeLearn with the given specific time and
date of deadline and only one attempt of submission.

RUBRICS FOR THEORETICAL QUESTIONS

Criteria Poor Below Meet Excellent Work Points

Expectations Expectations Earned
Relevance of The essay did Answer is Answer is brief Answer is
answer to the not answer the incomplete. with insufficient complete; sufficient
question question Excessive detail. detail provided to
discussion of Unrelated support assertions;
unrelated issues were answer focuses
issues and/or introduced only on issues
significant and/or minor related to the
errors in errors in question; factually
content content. correct
Thoroughness None of the Serious gaps in Most of the Deals fully with the
of answer relevant details the basic details basic details entire question.
were included needed are included but
some are
missing
Organization Weak Minor problems Good logical Very clear and
and logic of organization; of organization presentation logical presentation;
answer sentences or logic; Needs and good good development
rambling; ideas work on transitions are of an argument;
are repeated creating made. Transitions are
transitions made clearly and
between ideas smoothly
Mechanics of Major problems Frequent Good and Clear, readable,
writing (spelling, with mechanics problems with readable prose. prose.
punctuation, of language; mechanics of Minimal Good use of
grammar, clarity Awkward language; spelling, transitions; no
of prose) sentence Occasional punctuation and problems with
construction; awkward grammar errors. spelling,
Poor or absent sentences and punctuation, or
transitions; poor transitions; grammar
Frequently reduce
difficult to readability
understand

CASE ANALYSIS OUTLINE

 1. VIEWPOINT
Any person who is a decision maker or who is capable of recommending
a solution as mentioned in the case or any hired to recommend a
solution.
2. TIME CONTEXT
Generally, it delineates the take-off point of the analysis.
I. PROBLEM STATEMENT
This defines the perceived problem presented in the case and
which is the subject of the analysis. It may be presented in a declarative
form or in the form of a question.
II. STATEMENT OF THE OBJECTIVE
These are the goals, which the case analysis hopes to achieve.
This basically satisfy the test of SMART. (Specific, Measurable, Realistic,
and Time-Bound).
III. AREAS OF CONSIDERATION (SWOT)
Defines the internal and external environment of the company discernible
in the case.
IV. ASSUMPTIONS
Defines other factors affecting the company, which may not have
been specifically stated in the case but need to be assumed to better
understand the case and limit or enhance the analysis.
V. ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION
These are the possible solutions to the problem. Each must achieve the
objectives.
VI. ANALYSIS
Each ACA should be discussed in the light of the Areas of
Consideration and Assumptions. The expected output of discussion
should be the Strength and Weakness (Internal Environment) and
Opportunities and Threats (External Environment) for each ACA.
Advantages and Disadvantages of each ACA should be identified by way
of considering the SWOT.
VII. CONCLUSION
Comparative analysis of each ACA should be made by way of
identifying the variables and how each variable is related to each ACA.
Comparison is summarized by a decision matrix, which will now show the
ACA to be adopted.
VIII. PLAN OF ACTION
This plan delineates the series of action to be undertaken to
operationalize the adopted ACA. The plan implements the ACA. It would
be best to program the plan according to the basic functional areas.

IX. RECOMMENDATIONS

CASE STUDY 1:
 THE LAW OFFICES OF JETER, JACKSON, GUIDRY, AND
BOYER

The Evolution of the Firm

David Jeter and Nate Jackson started a small general law practice near
Sacramento, California. Before that, the two had spent five years in the district
attorney’s office after completing their formal schooling. What began as a small
partnership - just the two attorneys and a paralegal/assistant - had now grown into a
practice that employed more than 27 people in the three separated towns. The current
staff included 18 attorneys (three of whom had become partners), three paralegals, and
six secretaries.

For the first time in the firm’s existence, the partners felt like losing control of their
overall operation. The firm’s current caseload, number of employees, clients, travel
requirements, and facilities management needs had grown far beyond anything that the
original partners had ever imagined.

Attorney Jeter called a meeting of the partners to discuss the matter. Before the
meeting, opinions about the pressing problems of the day and proposed solutions were
sought from the entire staff. The meeting resulted in a formal decision to create a new
position, general manager of operations. The partners proceeded to compose a job
description and job announcement for recruiting purposes.

Highlights and major responsibilities of the job description include:

 Supervising day-to-day office personnel and operations (phones, meetings, word

processing, mail, billings, payroll, general overhead, and maintenance).
 Improving customer relations (more expeditious processing of cases and clients).
 Expanding the customer base.
 Enhancing relation to local communities.
 Managing the annual budget and related incentive programs.
 Maintaining or exceeding the current profit margin.

The general manager will provide an annual executive summary to the partners
and specific action plans for improvement and change.

A search committee was formed, and two months later, the new position was
offered to Brad Howser, a longtime administrator from the insurance industry seeking a
final career change and a return to his California roots. Howser made it clear that he
was willing to make a five-year commitment to the position and would then likely retire.

Things got off to a quiet and uneventful start as Howser spent the first few
months just getting to know the staff, observing day-to-day operations, and reviewing
and analyzing assorted client and attorney data and history, financial spreadsheets,
and so on.

About six months into the position, Howser became more outspoken and
assertive with the staff and established several new operational rules and procedures.
He began by changing the regular working hours. The firm previously had a flex
schedule that allowed employees to start and end the workday when choosing within
given parameters. Howser did not care for a “loose schedule” and now required that all
office personnel work from 9:00 to 5:00 each day. A few staff members were unhappy
about this. They complained to Howser, who matter- of - fact informed them that “this is
the new rule that everyone is expected to follow, and anyone who could or would not
comply should probably look for another job.’ Sylvia Bronson, an administrative
assistant who had been with the firm for several years, was particularly unhappy about
this change. She arranged for a private meeting with Howser to discuss her child care
circumstances and the difficulty that the new schedule presented. Howser seemed to
listen half- halfheartedly, and at once point told Bronson that “assistants are essentially
a dime a dozen and are readily available.” Bronson was seen leaving the office in tears
that day.

Howser was not happy with the average length of time it took to receive
payments for services rendered to its clients (accounts receivable). A closer look
showed that 30 percent of the clients paid their bills in 30 days or less, 60 percent paid
in 30 to 60 days, and the remaining 10 percent stretched it out to as many as 120 days.
Howser composed a letter that was sent to all clients whose outstanding invoices
exceeded 30 days. The strongly worded letter demanded immediate payment in full
and indicated that legal action might be taken against everyone who did not respond in
a timely fashion. While a small number of ‘late” payments were received soon after the
mailing, the firm received an even larger number of letters and phone calls from angry
clients, some of whom had been with the firm since its inception.

Hoswer was given an advertising and promotion budget to expand the client base. One
of the paralegals suggested that those expenditures should be carefully planned. The
firm had several attorneys who knew the local markets quite well and could probably
offer some insight and ideas on the subject. Howser thought about this briefly and then
decided to go it alone, reasoning that most attorneys know little or nothing about
marketing.

In an attempt to “bring all of the people together to form a team, Howser

established weekly staff meetings. These mandatory, hour-long sessions were run by
Howser, who presented a series of overhead slides, handouts, and lectures about
“some of the proven management techniques that were successful in the insurance
industry.”. The meetings typically ran past the allotted time frame and rarely covered all
of the agenda items.

Howser spent some of his time “enhancing community relations”. He was very
generous with many local groups such as the historical society, the garden clubs, the
recreational sports programs, the middle and high school band programs, and others.
In less than six months, he has written checks and authorized donations totaling more
than $25, 000. He was delighted about all of this and was certain that such a goodwill
gesture would pay off handsomely in the future.

As for the budget, Howser carefully reviewed each line item in search of ways to
increase revenues and cut expenses. He then increased the expected base or quota
for attorneys’ monthly billable hours, thus directly affecting their profit sharing and
bonus program. He significantly reduced the attorneys’ annual budget for travel, meals,
and entertainment on the cost side. He considered these to be frivolous and
unnecessary. Howser decided that one of the two full-time administrative assistant
positions in each office should be reduced to part-time with no benefits. He saw no
reason why the current workload could not be completed within this model.

Howser wrapped up his initial financial review and action plan by posting notices
throughout each office with new rules regarding the use of copy machines, phones,
and supplies.
 Howser completed the first year of his tenure with the required executive
summary report to the partners that included his analysis of the current status of each
department and his action plan. The partners were initially impressed by both Howser’s
approach to the new job and the changes he made. They all seemed to make sense
and were directly in line with the key components of his job description. At the same
time, “the office rumor mill and grapevine” had “heated up” considerably. Company
morale, which had always been relatively high, was now clearly waning. The water
coolers and hallways became the frequent meeting place of disgruntled employees.

As for the marketplace, while the partners did not expect to see an immediate
influx of new clients, they certainly did not expect to see shrinkage in their existing
client base. A number of individual and corporate clients took their business elsewhere,
still fuming over the letter they had received. The partners met with Howser to discuss
the situation. Howser urged to “sit tight and ride out of the storm”. he had seen this
happen before and had no doubt that the firm would achieve all of its goals in the long
run. Howser pointed out that people, in general, are resistant to change.

The partners met for drinks later that day and looked at each other with a great
sense of uncertainty. Should they ride out the storm as Howser suggested? Had they
done the right thing in creating the position and in hiring Howser? What had started as
a seemingly wise, logical, and smooth sequence of events became a crisis.

QUESTIONS:

1. Do you agree with Howser’s suggestion to “sit tight and ride out the storm,”
or should the partners take some action immediately? If so, what actions specifically?

2. Assume that the creation of the general manager of operations position was
a good decision. What leadership style and type of individual would you try to place in
this position?

3. Consider your own leadership style. What types of positions and situations
should you seek? What types of positions should you seek to avoid? Why?
CASE STUDY 2:

INDONESIA – AFTER SUHARTO AND THE ASIAN CRISIS

Indonesia is a vast country. It’s 220 million people are spread out over some 17, 000
islands that span an arc 3,200 miles long from Sumatra in the west to Irian Jaya in the east. It
is the world’s most populous Muslim nation – some 85 percent of the population count
themselves as Muslims – but also one of the most ethnically diverse. More than 500 languages
are spoken in the country, and separatists are active in number of provinces. For 30 years, this
sprawling nation was held together by the strong arm of President Suharto. Suharto was a
virtual dictator who was backed by the military establishment. Under his rule, the Indonesian
economy grew steadily, but there was a cost. Suharto brutally repressed internal dissent. He
was also famous for “crony capitalism”, using his command of the political system to favor the
business enterprises of his supporters and family.
In the end, Suharto was overtaken by massive debts that Indonesian had accumulated
during the 1990s. In 1997, the Indonesian economy went into a tailspin. The International
Monetary Fund stepped in with a $43 billion rescue package. When it was revealed that much
of this money found its way into the personal coffers of Suharto and his cronies, people took to
the streets in protest and he was forced to resign.
After Suharto, Indonesia moved rapidly toward a vigorous democracy, culminating in
October 2004 with the inauguration of SusiloBambangYudhoyono, the country’s first directly
elected president. The economic front has also seen progress. Public debt as a percentage of
GDP fell from close to 100 percent in 2000 to less than 60 percent by 2004. Inflation declined
from 12 percent annually in 2001 to 6 percent in 2004, and the economy grew by around 4
percent per annum during 2001 to 2005. But Indonesia lags behind its Southeast Asian
neighbors. Its economic growth trails that of China, Malaysia, and Thailand. Unemployment is
still high at around 10 percent of the working population. Inflation started to reaccelerate in
2005, hitting 14 percent by year end. Growth in labor productivity has been nonexistent for a
decade. Worse still, foreign capital is fleeting the country. Sony made headlines by shutting
down audio equipment factory in 2003, and a number of apparel enterprises have left
Indonesia for China and Vietnam. In total, the stock of foreign direct investment in Indonesia
fell from $24.8 billion in 2001 to $11.4 billion in 2004 as foreign firms left the nation.
Some observers feel that Indonesia is hobbled by its poor infrastructure. Public
infrastructure investment has been declining for years. It was about $3 billion in 2003, down
from $16 billion in 1996. The road system is a mess, half of the country’s population has no
access to electricity, the number of brownouts is on the rise s the electricity grid ages, and
nearly 99 percent of the population lacks access to modern sewerage facilities. The tsunami
that ravaged the coast of Sumatra in late 2004 only made matters worse. Mirroring the decline
in public investment has been a slump in private investment. Investment in the country’s all-
important oil industry fell from $3.8 billion in 1996 to just $177 million in 2003.
According to a World Bank study, business activity in Indonesia is hurt by excessive
red tape. It takes 151 days on average to complete the paperwork necessary to start a
business, compared to 30 days in Malaysia and just 8 days in Singapore. Another problem is
the endemically high level of corruption. Transparency International, which studies corruption
around the world, ranks Indonesia among the most corrupt, listing it 137 out of the 158
countries it tracked in 2005. Government bureaucrats, whose salaries are very low, inevitably
demand bribes from any company that crosses their path – and Indonesia’s penchant for
 bureaucratic red tape means a long line of officials might require bribes. Abdul Rahman Saleh,
the attorney general in Indonesia, has stated that the entire legal system, including the police
and the prosecutors, is mired in corruption. The police have been known to throw the
executives of foreign enterprises into jail on the flimsiest of pretexts, although some well-
placed bribes can secure their release. Even though Indonesia has recently launched an
anticorruption drive, critics claim it lacks any teeth. The political elite are reportedly so corrupt
that it is not in their interests to do anything meaningful to fix the system.

Questions:
1. What political factors explain Indonesia’s poor economic performance? What economic
factors? Are these two related?
2. Over a decade has passed since Suharto stepped down as president. Why do economic
problems continue to plague Indonesia?
3. Why do you think foreign firms have been exiting Indonesia in recent years? What are the
implications for the country? What is required to reverse this trend?
4. Why corruption so endemic in Indonesia? What are its consequences?
5. What are the risks facing foreign firms that do business in Indonesia? What is required to
reduce these risks?

THEORETICAL PROBLEMS/QUESTIONS:
1. A fundamental assumption of administrative reformers in the late 1800s and early
1900s was that politics could have only adverse effects on administration. How valid is that
belief? Why? How, and to what extent, do current administrative structures and practices
reflect that assumption? And do you see another side to politics, i.e. as a constructive force in
governance?

2. “The last decade has seen dramatic increase in unethical behavior of government,
employees at all level. For the inner circle of Malacañang Palace to local and appointed
officials, scandal has been followed by indictments and convictions detailed in banner
headlines in newspapers and reported on the evening electronic media. The next decade will
almost certainly witness the unethical fallout of its predecessor’s decade”. Do you think things
are bad as suggested in this quote?

3. Given the Public Administrator’s mandate to manage change in the pursuits and
societies values, ethical questions lie at the heart of administration such as:

a. How do administrators handle conflict between their personal values and public
mandates?
- a code of ethics creates standards of professionalism.  With a strong
code of ethics in public administration, leaders have the guidelines
they need to carry out their tasks and inspire their employees and
committees to enforce laws in a professional and equitable manner.
b. When in public administrators acting responsibly? Irresponsibly?