Public Management: The New Zealand Model
Leaders and organizational managers have acknowledged the significance of inclusion in the practice of public administration. Public participation and involvement have been utilized by managers and other leaders to come up with polices that do not only factor in the profitability of organizations or entities but also address given complex social issues (Rainey, 2009). Public participation and involvement enable public managers to attain a certain level of self-actualization on a social subject. This concept makes organizational leaders to be able to enhance processes that ensure that an entity provide solutions to the public issues. According to Fieldman and Khademian (2007), public leaders’ role is to manage people or programs that serve the public. It is evident that for public leaders to be able to serve people, they must first begin with implementing inclusion locally. However, the aspect of public participation comes with its own complications. This paper will theorize how we can still adhere to the ever-changing government and political rules and still implement management and organizational techniques from private and hybrid organizations to increase functionality of customer and employee satisfaction.
The ideology that the public sector cannot make room for organizational improvements in workplace culture and employee satisfaction due to stringent rules is no longer new. It is evident that many public sectors outsource materials and services making them “quasi” hybrid organizations. Because of this, public sector organizations are working on the horizontal axis instead of a vertical one in terms of command and control, and they are already on a different level of functionality than in the past. The concept of public participation and involvement among organizations has been open. The question concerning the relevant parties to be entailed in the management of public entities and to what extent, has been a subject of discussion (Rainey, 2009). Different studies have been conducted regarding some of these concepts and developing models of inclusion to understand the connection between different parties in the public participation programs.
The basic concepts about public participation and involvement entail a three domain model that is applied in the inclusion (Fieldman & Khademian, 2007). These are political, technical, and experiential models that are crucial in providing an environment for public inclusion. Nevertheless, communication and collaboration form a key aspect in public management. This process is enhanced by exercising horizontal form of management by public leaders, which enhance collaboration. The main players in public management are members of the public, political leaders, technical experts as well as the public managers or organizational leaders. Each of these categories of people plays different roles. In this model, however, the political and expertise models dominate the debate and practice. The political oversight model concerns the representation of public interests through elected leaders and the direct managers’ accountability while the expertise model address inclusion through application of professional judgment by public managers to meet the public demand needs. According to the two models, their common standing is the role they play, which is ascribed to public managers. In both scenarios, there is reduced effort in making direct contact with the public.
A Scale Model of Public Participation
The three model of public participation stated above attribute to specific relationships. Firstly, the political oversight model is attributed to the direct connections between public managers and the elected leaders. On the other hand, the expertise model features the facilitating link between the communities of experts with the public managers as well as the elected leaders to enhance the public interest. Therefore, public participation or administration entails the direct link between public managers and the public. Several researches have shown that there are alterations in the model, but in the end, their practices are not mutually exclusive (Denhart & Denhart, 2000). The main focus in public administration is the relationship that exists between the elected leaders and the public manager. Under this concept, the public votes for leaders and makes their petitions known through the political leaders. One of the main issues is how public leaders are able to fulfill the obligation of the elected leaders.
In the political oversight concept, the link between the public manager and the public is interceded through a command chain where political leaders are mandated to participate in the oversight roles. Their responsibilities are aimed at ensuring accountability of the public who are lower to the public leaders in the system. The pyramid of representation reflects the needs of the public through their representative leaders.
The concept has been a historical mode of politics and administration contrast. Government reformers have argued that effective and impartial accountability is attained through ranking and adoption of special, strong, and proficient civil service through a careful guide on administrative conduct. This tradition is seen as a principal agent relationship that exists between elected leaders and public managers. It is defined by the stringent performance measures by political leaders in the guidance of the management process and practices (Boston et al., 2001).
The community of experts performs different roles as indicated in figure two (Kelly, 2003). The community of exerts entails the individuals who give certified information and knowledge. A good number of these individuals hold big positions in the government agencies. Some of the experts work for institutions, such as universities and other research oriented institutions, which provide information and ascertain skill levels for those who work in public domain like educators, engineers, and nurses. Therefore, in their capacity as certified managers, they inform the elected leaders on issues that affect the public. Under this model, experts in specific areas, for instance, health or security, offer crucial information for the elected members to come up with information in the policy making process.
Furthermore, in the expert model, the link between public managers and the public is facilitated through the integration of the experts’ knowledge on behalf of the public. This is underpinned through proficient knowledge, peer review, and establishment of public value. The election process is a significant connection to the public. The managers’ focus is the application of managerial skills and applicable expertise skills to improve public policy results.
However, in some cases, public managers have the liberty to incorporate their own expertise apart from the mandated policies as well as their employees as long as it has the best outcome for the public interest. This is a view that ensures public managers exercise their leadership skills to redefine public issues and establish public value through different approaches.
The Inclusive Model
The inclusive concept entails a further connection between the public and public managers to the model. This model is inclusive through a number of ways. Firstly, the model is based on an assumption that public participation is significant in attaining core functions. According to Roberts (2003), there is a potential of public management to directly deal with the public to ensure quality of public programs and develop democratic practices. In line with this premise, managers in favor of the inclusion model endeavors to enable participation and persistently look for ways of ensuring participation (Rosenberg, 2007).
Moreover, in as much as the public is often the target for inclusion, public managers have found out that in order to attain maximum inclusion, they need to ensure they implement it within and outside organizations borders. Therefore, organizations begin with management of their employees and then across organizational boundaries thereafter. Furthermore, although the inclusive concept applies to different perspectives in design and incorporation of policies, these can also include the concerns of the political oversight as well as the expertise models. This is significant in planning and implementation of the plan. The concern models of political oversight and expertise are therefore crucial in the inclusion ideal. The inclusion model, however, necessitates a different way of interaction as compared to type previous models. Public managers establish direct links with the members of the public with regards to their interests and significance to a given program. The interest and significance or relevance may be based on the official organizational framework, geographical location, the concern of a social issue or other relevant factors. However, this direct connection does not dissolve the link provided by political leaders or the exercise of experts. Managers in this model are still under the influence of political leaders. The relationship between the two parties, however, tends to be different, for instance, the focus is ensuring communication across the different parties but on horizontal level so as to encourage community coproduction (Bovaird, 2007). The inclusive method, therefore, entails new responsibilities and tasks where public managers are responsible to ensure elected leaders, experts, and public members come together to suggest ways of solving a given problem and develop an alternative. This represents a transformation from primary decision making to facilitating (Vigoda, 2002). This process entails defining a public or social problem, which falls under the political role mandate and requires a process of finding a solution through a structural learning process among several public categories. Expediting the problem solving process entails public managers’ application of all tools and materials that ensure community participation and public members are on the same foot as experts, elected leaders, and the public managers (DeLeon & DeLeon, 2002). A community or public that has not been included in policy making and implementation process will definitely not have skills to do so. Experts that are known to only offer solutions do not have listening skills and advise on the way forward, and they tend to be dictating. On the other hand, politicians who are not in a position to understand this process of inclusion do not have the capacity to comprehend its full significance.
The basic role of public manager is, therefore, to create a working relationship that is effective for establishing ideas for successful workable programs since all parties are increasing interested in public participation (King, Feltey, & Susel, 1998). This means that attention should be given to the multiple relationship. The demands and other factors brought about by the political leaders and the priority given to the expert judgment determine the devilment of the working relationship between these parties.
Another important element to be applied in the public inclusive model is the boundaries, which are also relevant in the political and expertise models. The main difference is in the functions of the managers in relation to the boundaries. In the political and expertise models, the management functions are clearly demarcated by boundaries. The function of public managers is reporting to the elected leaders’ principals or experts working hand in hand with other experts. In the inclusive model, the function of the public manager is to enable and create opportunities for crossing boundaries to assemble local knowledge, political primacies, and the expertise to have a common problem solving process. The managers’ role does not entail transforming or eradicating the boundaries but understanding where the boundaries are and defining the effective easy way through which they can be engaged. In normal circumstances, there will always be boundaries between the political, local, and expertise knowledge and priorities in solving social concerns. The role of the public managers, therefore, entails finding avenues through which they can come up with opportunities to wide participation and viewpoints that can generate the best alternative ways of realizing and handling public concerns.
Role of Public Manager in Public Administration Inclusion
In as much there are other people and parties that are significant in impacting the process of inclusion, public managers are crucial since they are in a high elevated position that makes a great difference. The public managers are responsible for the main functions. In their pursuit for performing these important functions, public managers get an opportunity to bring together a number of players, for instance, public servants, political leaders, external experts, organized groups, non-profit organizations, and the members of the public among others (Fung, Archon, & Wright. 2001).. These participants are crucial in playing different roles on the community that develops with regards to the different roles assigned to each one. Although the different roles played by these participants are recognized, the role played by public leaders is key to their implementation. The manner in which public managers apply the tools and equipment in public policy in pursuit of a given function is essential in structuring public participation.
Public managers are at liberty to choose the manner in which they carry out their functions. The public manager can decide to assume the function of a manager whose responsibility is to implement the wishes of the elected leaders. Alternatively, the managers can take up the role of aligning themselves with the wishes of a given experts and establishing themselves as the experts in their own capacity and rights. Lastly, the managers can also assume the role of being front runners of championing the needs of the public. Inclusive management entails identifying, engaging, and creating ways to cross the boundaries. Therefore, inclusive managers in public participation and administration identify and engage the boundaries that exist between political concerns, expertise as well as the local knowledge to establish a considered space. In establishing their functions, public managers create a community of participation where the public and organizations are entailed in the process of policy making and integration.
In policy making or integrating the process, a community of participation is established. The community can be more or less incorporating. Some communities will only entail participants required by law while others will significantly be wider than the required number. In the inclusive community of participation in public administration, the representation of the three models are significant in carrying out their distinct roles and responsibilities as joint members in the process of problem solving. Through engaging the boundaries, the public managers indicate to all the participants that they are welcome and a community of participation is being established.
The model of inclusive management is engrossed on the comprehension, commitment, and crossing of boundaries that enhance the understanding of the context of public policy efforts in public administration. The inclusive manager works to assimilate political oversight, expertise, and public participation to establish a comprehensive community of involvement where participants of the three domains are authentic in a joint effort. This is different from the notion that sees the three models as unconventional methods of hypothesizing and practicing public management in public administration. Everything in nature is cyclical and at the other side of workplace culture and employee satisfaction is the customer experience. Government organizations, in the past, thought themselves to be essential and necessity, having put customer service on the back burner, as processes and function were their main focus.
The role of the public manager has the ability to promote public administration deliberation. Public deliberation is crucial in the establishment and conservation of another significant structure; the foundation of democracy. It is important to note that public managers are not the only participants who need to be involved in this exertion and that, definitely, no matter what public managers do, their endeavor can be disillusioned by others. However, public managers play a central role in this exertion and, consequently, public management specialists should do their best to hypothesize this function and be effective in implementing it. Public managers can add value to the continuing creation of democracy to make it meaningful. Essential to inclusive management is acknowledging and the effort to incorporate the political, expert, and local grounded on the standpoints linked with a delinquent, as well as the disparities within each outlook. Instead of giving priority to the public, experts, or politicians in an effort to address glitches, a principle of inclusive management is significant way of functioning with all three outlooks to enrich the strategy and execution of a program. The task by public leaders is not to establish a discrete place where the community can contribute, but rather perform responsibilities in a manner that creates a public participation entailing the local and knowledge based avenues of identifying problems and engaging political and expert ways to shift to unconventional ways of knowing and addressing problems.
Boston, Jonathan, John Martin, June Pallot, and Pat Walsh. 1996. Public Management: The New Zealand Model. Aukland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.
Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public administration review, 67(5), 846-860.
Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization science, 13(4), 442-455.
DeLeon, L., & DeLeon, P. (2002). The democratic ethos and public management. Administration & Society, 34(2), 229-250.
Denhardt, Robert B. and Janet Vinzant Denhardt. 2000. “The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering.” Public Administration Review 60 (6): 549.
Feldman, M. S. & Khademian, A. M. (2007). The role of the public manager in inclusion: creating communities of participation. Governance, 20(2), 305-324
Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening democracy: innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics and society, 29(1), 5-42.
Kelly, S.E. 2003. “Public Bioethics and Publics: Consensus, Boundaries, and Participation in Biomedical Science Policy.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 28 (3): 339-365.
King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. N. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public administration review, 317-326.
Rainey, H. G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Roberts, Nancy. (2003). “Direct Citizen Participation: Building a Theory.” Prepared for presentation at the 7th National Public Management Research Conference, October 9-11, 2003, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Roberts, Nancy. 2003. “Direct Citizen Participation: Building a Theory.” Prepared for presentation at the 7th National Public Management Research Conference, October 9-11, 2003, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Rosenberg, S. W. (2007). Rethinking democratic deliberation: The limits and potential of citizen participation. Polity, 39(3), 335-360.g.
Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public administration review, 62(5), 527-540.
Vigoda, Eran. (2002). “From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the Next Generation of Public Administration.” Public Administration Review:62:5:527-540.