Genocide and the Ethics of Public Management</h1> <article> <h1>Genocide and the Ethics of Public Management</h1> <p>Warren Master — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:05:00 GMT</p> My apologies for the long dry spell – especially for those of you who can’t wait for the next agile bureaucracy post, not! I was temporarily distracted by our recent conference entitled Transforming Bureaucratic Cultures: Challenges and Solutions for Public Management Practitioners ( www.thepublicmanager.org/2008Conference ). Along these lines, here’s a challenge that never seems to be out of the headlines for very long. In their recently published book on the genocide in Burundi in the mid-1990...(<a href="http://thepublicmanager.org/cs/blogs/agile_bureaucracy/archive/2008/08/19/genocide-and-the-ethics-of-public-management.aspx">read more</a>) </article> <article> <h1>Strengthening Workforce Resiliency in The Public Sector</h1> <p>admin — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:56:00 GMT</p> <p><em>By following practical guidelines from the new field of resiliency psychology, public managers can navigate through rough periods of change and bounce back from setbacks.</em> </p> <p> </p> <p>By Al Siebert</p> <p> </p> <p>In today’s world of nonstop change, public managers need a highly resilient workforce. In the past, government managers ran stable, efficient organizations, which operated for decades without much change. Public-sector workers did what their managers told them to do and were evaluated on how well they followed their job descriptions. </p> <p> </p> <p>Today’s managers must implement deep reorganization and constant change on reduced budgets while trying to meet required objectives. Every branch of government has shifted from needing cooperative, compliant employees, to needing self-motivated, change-proficient, adaptable workers capable of performing in new ways without up-to-date job descriptions. This demand distresses many managers and workers. </p> <p> </p> <p>When public-sector employees list their challenges and difficulties, most report that they feel pressured to do more work, of better quality, in less time, with fewer people, in new ways, with a reduced budget—while worrying whether their jobs are safe. Some succumb to this pressure, some don’t.</p> <p> </p> <p>Public managers can make a difference in how well their workers cope by using simple techniques to strengthen their resiliency. Public managers who dwell on trying to overcome employee resistance to change fail because trying to get people to stop doing something is a negative goal. A positive goal is to develop resiliency strengths in workers who are committed to their work and have positive attitudes toward change. </p> <p> </p> <p>Public-sector managers who work proactively to strengthen workforce resiliency gain many benefits. Resilient workers hold up well under pressure, adapt quickly to change, get the right things done with fewer mistakes, and are sick less often. Resiliency is not an ability one either has or does not have.</p> <p> </p> <p>Resiliency strengths can be developed, just as proficiency in any sport or activity can be learned and developed. How can managers strengthen workforce resiliency?</p> <p> </p> <ul> <li> <div>Learn which resiliency strengths to develop in employees. </div></li> <li> <div>Know the factors that support or impair worker resiliency. </div></li> <li> <div>Be a good role model of resiliency. </div></li></ul> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>Resiliency psychology offers the following practical guidelines for strengthening workforce resiliency.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Support Optimum Health and Well-Being</strong> </p> <p>At the most basic level, the people who hold up well under constant pressure live in ways that sustain their health and well-being. Wellness is a way of life. Actively encourage employees to follow widely known practices for living a healthy lifestyle.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Increase Positive Feelings</strong></p> <p>Laughing, pleasant relationships, enjoyable moments, and feelings of job satisfaction expand a person’s cognitive skills and strengthen resiliency. Negative emotions such as fear, anger, anxiety, and worry constrict a person’s cognitive skills and weaken resiliency. Award-winning research by psychologist Barbara Frederickson has documented a direct connection between positive feelings, resiliency, good health, flourishing, good relationships, and effective work teams.Work teams observed to have a high ratio of positive to negative emotions flourish while work teams with little positive feeling tend to languish.The lowest positive-negative ratio needed for flourishing is 3 to 1, a ratio of 5 to 1 is best. </p> <p> </p> <p>Managers who threaten workers and intentionally keep them fearful are acting irrationally because negative emotions increase the probability of mistakes, accidents, employee sickness, and having good people quit. Managers who create a positive, appreciative atmosphere that promotes job satisfaction strengthen resilience, increase mental alertness and accuracy, and keep the best employees strongly committed to the organization. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Provide an Emotional Paycheck</strong> </p> <p>Workers become more engaged and committed when they experience emotional satisfaction.Your governmental organization renders a monetary paycheck for each worker, but your job is to provide them with an emotional paycheck. You do this by purposefully arranging for the people under your direct control to experience the following feelings each week: </p> <p> </p> <ul> <li> <div>My work is important and meaningful. </div></li> <li> <div>I am responsible.</div></li> <li> <div>I am recognized for achievements.</div></li> <li> <div>I have the opportunity for professional growth. </div></li> <li> <div>I am valued and appreciated. </div></li> <li> <div>I have accomplished something.</div></li></ul> <p> </p> <p>To impart these feelings requires good emotional intelligence in a manager—an important area of professional growth.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Forest Service</strong> </p> <p>In recent years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service has undergone a massive national reorganization. For the first hundred years of its existence, it had a network of regions, forests, and ranger districts that operated autonomously. This structure, created by Gifford Pinchot in 1905, had been designed so that it would not take a district ranger more than one day riding on horseback to reach his forest supervisor’s office. </p> <p> </p> <p>As the USDA Forest Service entered its second century, the national executive leadership team saw that the old structure was inefficient. The reorganization of the Forest Service established a central service center in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which led to layoffs and relocations that disrupted the lives and families of thousands of employees. </p> <p> </p> <p>The director of the new human capital management division, Roy Roosevelt, understood that a positive outlook within his unit was essential. “I knew it was important for all of us in human resources to respond with positive coping energy to every new challenge,” Roy says. “Whenever a new demand hits us, my response is, ‘The fun never stops!’ I kept stirring up enthusiasm for handling the reorganization really well, urged everyone to support people in the field, and gave them constant praise and appreciation. I want everyone to know that as the Forest Service strives to meet the competitive challenges of today and the future, human resources will play a major role.”</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Emphasize Problem-Solving Responses</strong> </p> <p>Resilient people, when faced with difficulty, focus on solving the challenge. The least resilient people become overly emotional, portray themselves as victims, blame others, and dwell on their misfortune. </p> <p> </p> <p>You increase workforce resiliency by arranging for workshops on effective problem-solving methods. Content should include logical “left brain” methods, creative “right brain” methods, group brainstorming, and how to find simple, practical solutions. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Encourage Self-Motivated Learning</strong> </p> <p>Highly resilient people continuously learn new ways of doing things, seek new experiences, and frequently change how they interact with their circumstances. The least resilient people drift into a “calcified” condition where they try to avoid change and new experiences. Childlike curiosity, playfulness, and self-motivated, self-managed learning lead to advanced resilience skills. We are marvelously blessed with the ability to replace old behaviors by learning new ones at any age. </p> <p> </p> <p>A problem with traditional training is that it conditions employees to be passive learners who wait to be instructed. In contrast, self-motivated, self-managed learning leads to becoming more skillful, change-proficient, and resilient year after year.This means that traditional training methods are self-defeating when used to try to increase workforce resiliency.</p> <p> </p> <p>Resilient people are like children who never grow up.They are curious and get excited about learning better ways of doing things. Encourage workers to ask questions. Asking good questions is a far more useful skill in today’s world than knowing answers that someone taught. Habitual curiosity leads quick orientation to new realities and playful curiosity can lead to practical problem-solving—one of the most basic resiliency skills.</p> <p> </p> <p>A professional growth area for budding managers is learning how to manage with questions. Keep in mind, if you want resilient employees, you can’t continue to manage workers like they were managed in the past.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Adapt to Circumstances</strong> </p> <p>Adapting to new circumstances is the key to survival in all of nature. If you always respond one way and never in the opposite way, you sometimes will be helpless to stop yourself from automatically reacting in a self-defeating manner. </p> <p> </p> <p>The flexibility found in highly resilient people comes from their complex inner nature. Here is a partial list of counterbalanced personality qualities typically found in people who overcome setbacks to achieve solid career success:</p> <p> </p> <ul> <li> <div>Creative and analytical </div></li> <li> <div>Serious and playful </div></li> <li> <div>Hard-working and lazy </div></li> <li> <div>Sensitive and tough </div></li> <li> <div>Cautious and trusting </div></li> <li> <div>Unselfish and selfish </div></li> <li> <div>Self-appreciating and self-critical </div></li> <li> <div>Impulsive and thorough </div></li> <li> <div>Optimistic and pessimistic.</div></li></ul> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Metropolitan Bus System</strong> </p> <p>The new operations manager for a metropolitan bus system studied the budget expenditures and saw that the annual cost for paper towels in the operations budget was over $25,000. “Why is this cost so high?” he wondered. </p> <p> </p> <p>He spent many days in the bus barns observing the drivers and bus cleaning crews. When the drivers came on duty, he saw each one pick up a new package of paper towels from the supply room on the way to their assigned bus. During their shifts, the drivers would break open a package of towels and clean up messes left by passengers on the handrails and seats. At the end of their shifts, the drivers would leave the partially used packages of towels on the bus. The bus cleaning crews would then remove them and throw them out. When he looked in the dumpsters, the manager saw large stacks of unused paper towels thrown into the trash.</p> <p> </p> <p>Here was the problem. One package of towels for each driver, every shift, every day, added up to a major expense. He talked about what he’d observed with his boss, the drivers, and the cleaning crews. The solution they decided to implement was to install towel dispensers on each bus and give the cleaning crews responsibility for keeping the dispensers filled. The cost of paper towels dropped immediately, saving the transit system over $6,000 a year.</p> <p> </p> <p>This manager followed all the steps for rational problem-solving. He identified the problem, was clear about the desired goal, collected information, discussed several solutions with people who had to make a solution work, and measured the results. </p> <p> </p> <p>By using a problem-solving response to any challenge or difficulty, it becomes a valuable habit. But more than that, when you invite people to put their minds to work and solve problems, they feel more job satisfactions and make sure that their solutions work.</p> <p> </p> <p>How many of these pairs of counterbalanced qualities describe you? Can you add more? </p> <p> </p> <p>Counterbalanced personality qualities are signs of advanced emotional intelligence.Your resilience in rapidly changing circumstances comes from having many such pairs of traits, whatever they may be. The longer the list of pairs of counterbalanced, paradoxical traits you recognize in yourself, the more emotionally complex you are, which can increase your chances of successfully handling any situation that develops. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Balance Positivity with Negativity</strong></p> <p>Managers with positive attitudes typically handicap themselves by having a negative attitude about negative thinking. When managers suppress disagreement and negative thinking during meetings, they create a condition called “groupthink,” in which groups make bad decisions.</p> <p> </p> <p>Power is derived from being at the choice point between counterbalanced forces. A sign that managers have developed advanced emotional intelligence is that they feel comfortable with and can counterbalance positive thinking with negative thinking. Barbara Clark, former City Treasurer in Portland, Oregon, says, “A negativity specialist will make you think through your plans better, point out flaws, and warn you about what could go wrong. I would thank the Lord when I had a negative thinker in my department!”</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Employ a Flexible Style</strong></p> <p>Do you expect that everyone will respond well to the way that you want to manage, or do you manage people in a way that gets the best responses from each individual? In today’s workplace, a flexible management style gets the best results. </p> <p> </p> <p>Two of the most well researched personality factors are “external locus of control” and “internal locus of control.” Hundreds of research studies show that people who cope best in difficult situations score high on measures of “internal control” beliefs.They feel personally responsible for how well their lives go, and know that they have some control over events and their responses to events. People who feel helpless and victimized, and blame others, score high on measures of “external control” beliefs.They do not believe that their personal efforts could make anything better. They believe that solutions to their unhappy condition are under the control of other people and external forces. </p> <p> </p> <p>A fascinating truth about the human mind is that whatever you believe, you will find evidence that supports your belief. Thus it is that “external” and “internal” belief systems are both self-validating. </p> <p> </p> <p>As a manager, it is nonproductive to try to get employees to change from their way of thinking to your way of thinking. If you adapt how you interact with each worker to get the best results from them, everything will flow much easier for all.</p> <p> </p> <p>Figure 1 is a visual guideline on how to use a flexible management style that gets the best results from a diverse workforce.You start by observing where each person is on the external- internal dimension. Use the appropriate management mode with them, and then follow up with appreciation. </p> <p> </p> <p><a href="http://thepublicmanager.org/cs/blogs/featured/Articles%20Images/featureArticle08-08B.gif"></a></p> <p>This management strategy lets you avoid a typical failing in managers: spending most of your time trying to improve the performance of your least productive workers. A much smarter strategy is to tell people who need to be told what to do exactly what you want them to do. Leave your best workers alone to do what they know has to be done.Then devote most of your management time to the middle group who want to learn how to be more effective. It’s a much better experience for all.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Bounce Back Stronger</strong> </p> <p>Resilience means being able to bounce back from setbacks that may seem overwhelming at first. When resilient people have their lives disrupted, they handle their feelings in healthy ways.They allow themselves to feel grief, anger, loss, and confusion when hurt and distressed, but they don’t let it become a permanent state. An unexpected outcome is that they not only heal, but often bounce back stronger than before. </p> <p> </p> <p>Public-sector managers and employees who function at the highest resilience level are best suited for a world of nonstop change. They adjust quickly to new circumstances and move confidently through chaotic turmoil to reach good outcomes. </p> <p> </p> <p>Resilient people handle major difficulties more easily than others. They expect to overcome workplace disruptions in ways that work out well, and the struggle to overcome difficulties can develop new strengths. Resilient organizations have stories of how adversities in their past turned out to be valuable experiences. </p> <p> </p> <p>We live in a constantly changing world. Some people make their lives difficult by resisting or fighting the ongoing changes. Others adapt and flow with them— it’s each person’s choice. Managers who understand the importance of workforce resiliency can help employees (and themselves) navigate through rough periods of change skillfully and easily.</p> <p><em><strong>Al Siebert, PhD</strong>, is director of The Resiliency Center in Portland, Oregon. He has extensive experience conducting workshops for public-sector groups and is director of the resiliency camp at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s Eastern Management Development Center. His book, The Resiliency Advantage, won the Independent Publishers 2006 Best Self- Help Book Award. It includes many stories of public-sector employees as outstanding examples of resiliency. He can be contacted at </em><a href="http://www.resiliencycenter.com.this/"><em>http://www.resiliencycenter.com.This</em></a><em> article is based on his workforce resiliency session at the 2006 Excellence in Government conference.</em> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References </strong></p> <p>Frederickson, B. L., and M. Losada.“Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing.” American Psychologist, Vol. 60, No. 7 (2005), pp. 678–686. </p> <p> </p> <p>Siebert,A. The Resiliency Advantage: Master Change,Thrive under Pressure, and Bounce Back from Setbacks (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2005).</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> </article> <article> <h1>Realizing a Performance Culture in Federal Agencies</h1> <p>admin — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:00:00 GMT</p> Government executives and human capital professionals offer a road map for designing and implementing effective performance management systems. By Bill Trahant What’s the best way for government executives to create high-performance cultures in federal agencies? In March 2007 testimony before the House Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Bob Tobias, Director of Public Sector Executive Education at American University (AU), said it will never happen until you “change the behavior of every employee...(<a href="http://thepublicmanager.org/cs/blogs/featured/archive/2008/07/14/realizing-a-performance-culture-in-federal-agencies.aspx">read more</a>) </article> <article> <h1>The Non-Strategic State of Workplace Learning</h1> <p>Warren Master — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:27:00 GMT</p> Introduction Over the past decade or so, government at all levels has begun requiring short- and long-term plans, including strategic goals, measurable objectives, a system for assessing outcomes, and periodic reporting on results. More recently, decision makers have attempted to tie budget and other resource decisions to agency performance. Ironically, this shift to a more results-oriented management system hasn’t yet made a noticeable dent in public sector organizational culture. I say this because...(<a href="http://thepublicmanager.org/cs/blogs/agile_bureaucracy/archive/2008/06/16/the-non-strategic-state-of-workplace.aspx">read more</a>) </article> <article> <h1>Citizen Involvement in The Digital Age</h1> <p>admin — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:35:00 GMT</p> <em> <p><br /><a href="http://thepublicmanager.org/cs/blogs/featured_articles/Articles%20Images/featureArticle08-01.jpg"></a>Web-based public comment is helping Spartanburg County and the Town of Cary connect with residents concerning important community issues.</p> <p><br /></em>by Dan Bevarly and Jeffery G. Ulma<br /><br />The Digital Age is here.The way we communicate, share, and connect with others has changed drastically in the past decade. Although you may not know some of your neighbors, you might encounter them online in social networks, forums, and— through one or two degrees of separation—a professional network. The private sector has been the bellwether of things to come in the public sector, but municipalities throughout the country are taking action to connect a new generation of citizens—always attached to a mobile phone, Internet connection, or an amalgam of the two—to their government, to spur participation in a way that is more feasible in an overscheduled, digital life style. </p> <p><br />The function of a democratic government has not changed much since its inception.The voice of the people is as important as ever in the creation of law and the establishment of policy.However, capturing that voice has become the new challenge.The public forum—in an offline world—doesn’t have the draw of even ten years ago. Society at large has shifted to an online world, and public chief information officers and managers are beginning to use this societal trend to their advantage.<br /><br /><br /><strong>The Groundswell Begins<br /></strong>No longer is a single community meeting in the neighborhood with an “open microphone” enough, and a mandatory public hearing at the end of a process is often viewed with skepticism. Some residents are intimidated by the crowd and don’t express their true opinion or,worse yet, don’t participate at all.</p> <p><br />Citizens want—even demand—early, extensive, and convenient access to local government so they can play a part in planning decisions.As the recipients of the feedback, the government staff must decipher hundreds of paper forms, find the best way to sort these numerous comments, and quickly respond to citizen concerns. For these reasons, local governments need modern ways to manage public input.</p> <p><br />Community thought leaders at all levels can now seize more opportunities to connect with everyday citizens by leveraging social networking as a tool to foster virtual “town meetings.”Across the nation, governments are opening lines of communication between their offices and the people of their respective states, counties, and municipalities. Using theWeb to empower citizens and publish open calls for civic engagement and public comment, local governments are warming to true constituent engagement, but more can be done to harness the true power of the citizen’s voice. Social networking is no longer an area that the government can ignore.Visionary state and local leaders are adopting these consumer- adopted behaviors at a fast pace, but in ways that make sense at a government or enterprise level.</p> <p><br />Many state and local governments are looking at the massive popularity of social networking as a way to encourage citizen involvement. By integrating enterprise social networking into their latest initiatives and implementing media-rich applications designed to meet the structured requirements of government, municipalities are striving to connect with citizens concerning crucial government functions like zoning, issues management, and tourist development. </p> <p><br />Two uses of online engagement in the public sector come from the Carolinas. In each, the idea of community remains,while the way in which people convene— and share valuable ideas—shifts to theWeb.<br /><br /><br /></p> <p><strong>Spartanburg County<br /></strong>Home to more than 250,000 people, Spartanburg County, South Carolina, is no stranger to connecting with its populace concerning important community issues. Although experienced in traditional citizen engagement, the county is faced with key economic development goals to help modernize this segment of rural America and has responded with an innovative digital community.</p> <p><br />Since 1987, the Spartanburg County Foundation, a public-private partnership, has published community indicator reports, effectively using citizen comment to raise awareness about the many issues impacting the growth, health, and quality of life of county residents.Traditionally updated every three years, the report has proven a valuable resource to the community: assisting organizations in their planning and encouraging conversation and dialogue among citizens to bring about community change. In fact, the most recent data collected and reviewed— concerning family, health, education, public safety, economics, and environmental issues—have led to the establishment of ten community goals, strategies to achieve them, and sixty indicators to benchmark progress toward each of them.</p> <p><br />What began with focus group discussions grew to an imperative to find a better way to inform, connect, and update even larger audiences throughout the county. For this one-stop communication resource, the foundation adopted Neighborhood America’s enterprise social networking solution for its latest Community Indicators project to help foster citizen engagement. By implementing digital communities through a platform rich in features and functionality, coupled with experienced support, Spartanburg was able to avoid a large capital investment, all the while effectively collecting and managing scores of responses from its people.</p> <p><br />The foundation has been able to scale its audience, engage citizens, and update them on progress toward achieving the long-term goals set forth in the Community Indicators project. In addition to offering citizens a convenient way to stay informed more frequently, the site encompasses all community members, including the county’s visually impaired. Spartanburg’s achievement in citizen engagement is a model for other counties, attracting community leaders from across the country to learn from its example.This initiative has received national recognition for its community-wide effort to develop a better future for the citizens of Spartanburg County.<br /><br /><br /></p> <p><strong>Town of Cary</strong> <br />Cary, North Carolina, with a population of 121,000, is located in the heart of the world-famous ResearchTriangle region. Recognized by publications like Money magazine as one of the best places to live inAmerica, the community has a long history of cutting-edge planning and zoning approaches.The citizens in this high-tech location are not afraid of computers:more than 94 percent of the households have access to the Internet.Collecting data, studies, plans, reports, and ordinances from other places, they e-mail officials and staff members regularly to ask questions and express their opinions. Some have even created their ownWeb sites about new development proposals to communicate with each other.<br /><br /><br /></p> <p><strong>Technology Town</strong> <br />As a result, town government has had to keep pace with digital methods for communicating and offering additional involvement opportunities, includingWebbased public participation. For example, agendas and detailed staff reports for rezoning cases for the town council and planning and zoning board meetings have been available on theWeb for a decade.These include maps, photos, and color renderings of the proposed development. The town also providesWeb pages for special planning projects and publishes monthly reports listing all approved and pending development plans. </p> <p><br />Further reflecting its unofficial nickname,Technology Town, Cary has moved to the next stage—“going interactive”—providing online surveys and threaded discussion boards for some of its planning efforts.Although the results have been mixed (and limitations like the selfselection of participants are recognized), the town council is still committed to offering an ever-expanding array of involvement methods for Cary residents.<br /><br /><br /></p> <p><strong>Neighborhood America<br /></strong>To extend its repertoire, Cary recently acquired Neighborhood America’s Public Comment system.Although thisWeb-based approach was designed for longterm projects, like the preparation of transportation plans, Cary is going to use it in a new way: applying the system to short-term processes like rezoning.</p> <p><br />For complex rezoning cases that last about six months, handling the intense flurry of input directed to different people or arriving scattershot at town hall is difficult. Concerns are shared with the staff, council members, and planning and zoning board members. They arrive in a variety of formats (phone calls, letters,walk-in visits, and e-mails). Cary sought a mechanism where it could funnel comments through a single portal on the Web, and Public Comment fit the bill. </p> <p><br />This focused social network (or online community) serves as a one-stop communication tool with the planning department for Cary citizens concerned with town zoning.Through citizen feedback to one portal, town officials are able to manage and respond quickly and effectively. These responses are then published on theWeb site to serve as a reference for residents, preventing the repetition of questions that planning department officials have already answered.This streamlined communication results in an increased response rate and enables officials to devote more time to constituents.</p> <p><br />As it now readies to test this emerging technology on the first few cases,Cary hopes to use it to better manage information and feedback.The town should also gain insight into participants by asking them questions like where they live in relation to the project or which specific aspect of a development proposal generates the most concern. In the end, Public Comment will give Cary a tool to share information, collect citizen input, provide timely and consistent responses, and facilitate improved decision making.<br /><br /><br /></p> <p><strong>Web-Based Engagement<br /></strong>Cary is just one example of technology’s facilitating engagement in local communities.Town hall meetings have been enhanced, even replaced, by boundary-spanning, interactive online forums, and press releases and posting campaigns with limited reach have given way to bidirectional,Web-based engagement sessions—all in a concerted push to include the voice of the populace. </p> <p><br />The traditional media have latched onto this trend, as well. ABC, CBS, Fox, and other networks have stepped up their user-generated content campaigns to enable viewers to participate in political discussion by submitting video—via mobile phones if they so choose—directly to the news agency.ABC has used this effective avenue to elicit citizen comment for on-air interviews with President Bush and other high-ranking political officials.</p> <p><br />Public managers have the tools that reflect timehonored standards of public comment—standards designed to support constructive public dialogue.Yet, at the same time, new technologies now enable governments to collect and manage multiple forms of public feedback, through any type of device, and to organize that feedback in a way that makes it useful and reportable. If these innovations transcend geographical and socioeconomic boundaries, allowing for instant engagement and bidirectional communication in a secure, structuredWebbased environment, then why aren’t these new interactive technologies ubiquitous across the public landscape?<br /><br /><br /></p> <p><strong>Enterprise Social Networking<br /></strong>The technology that makes citizen engagement possible represents the next wave in data organization and information delivery. Known as enterprise social networking (ESN), this Internet-native software as a service (SaaS) solution is designed to enable governments to manage structured public involvement.The solution provides a complete enterprise content management system that incorporates state-of-the-art management of usergenerated content, that is, all forms of multimedia content created and submitted by citizens. System capabilities are comparable to or exceed those of largescale technology development projects in major corporations and are comparatively affordable for even smaller government offices. </p> <p><br />Most important, because the system is delivered in a Web-based SaaS model without the need to install hardware or software, ESN can be quickly launched to meet all project needs.TheWeb delivery makes the ESN easy to use—particularly beneficial to municipal governments since the staffs tend to be small and nontechnical. Small teams can manage large outreach initiatives in real time.These systems can also be very affordable.Many planning offices are able to redirect budgets for traditional community outreach items—mailings, meetings, etc.—and gain efficiency and citizen responsiveness at the same time. </p> <p><br />ESN systems enable the public manager to effectively manage all work processes related to community projects—such as press releases, census lists, and other forms of documents and collaboration—all while considering organized feedback from the municipality’s many constituents.These next-generation technologies will enable campaigns to “turn on a dime” with hypersensitive listening to those in touch with public zoning policy and statute issues.<br /><br /><br /></p> <p><strong>Conclusion<br /></strong>Interactive technology that offers traditional rules of structure is the future. It allows governments to better understand their constituents and invites reasoning. After all, public dialogue helps to build relationships, expectations, and policy over time, rather than at a point in time. Most important, it enables governments to establish long-term relationships with citizens on the basis of clear, accurate, and structured communication. Indeed, this is the future of citizen participation.</p> <p> </p> </article> <article> <h1>Attracting Graduates to Government</h1> <p>admin — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:31:00 GMT</p> <div id="contentText"> <p><em><a href="http://thepublicmanager.org/cs/blogs/featured_articles/Articles%20Images/featureArticle08-02b.jpg"></a>Federal agencies miss opportunities to recruit top talent when they fail to debunk myths that steer new graduates into the private sector and rely on archaic hiring processes that today’s top professionals bypass for easier and quicker private-sector job offers.</em></p> <p> </p> <p>Dale F. Weeks <br /><br />Young government employees face a number of acknowledged obstacles in choosing a path of public service: complex application processes that often drag on for months, lower salaries than those for comparable private-sector jobs, bureaucratic hierarchies and promotion caps that limit opportunities even for highly skilled workers, and an inflexible environment. Those entering the private sector face a different set of problems: limited benefits, longer work hours and fewer vacation days, and an environment lacking camaraderie as new employees compete for recognition and promotion. Public-sector organizations must recognize the common desires of new graduates if they want to attract the kind of professionals who can develop into future managers and leaders. </p> <p> </p> <p>Young professionals make tradeoffs according to their personal preferences, priorities, and short- and long-term goals. Some sacrifice higher-paying jobs in the private sector for the longer-term security of government. Some choose government because of their passion for an issue or dedication to a government agency mission. Those who enter the private sector may have a poor perception of government or prioritize earning potential, particularly if they face student loan repayments and the high cost of living, especially in metropolitan areas.</p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>The Differences Are Blurring</strong></p> <p>Public servants have days when they sit at their desks after comparing jobs with their private-sector colleagues and wonder, “Should I have gone the private-sector route to avoid all this bureaucracy?” Recently, however, I’ve heard complaints from private-sector employees more typical of those you hear from public servants. They cite management structures and decision-making procedures that are far from the fast-paced environment that public- sector employees perceive as the <em>mode du jour</em>. One colleague, who works for a large consulting firm, spoke of the bureaucracy he has encountered in his daily job because a project on which he is working requires multilayered contract approvals that often delay negotiation and progress for weeks. </p> <p> </p> <p>Large consulting firms that contract with government may also find their organizations start to function at the government pace, particularly when bound to the regulations and requirements for procurement and other operations and when relying on approval processes from government officials to perform their work. This was the case I observed in reviewing disaster recovery and reconstruction funded by the federal government and implemented through the private sector.</p> <p> </p> <p>The private sector is performing government functions through contracts, helping re build the Nation and other countries in a year of multiple natural disasters and a continuing war on terrorism.This collaboration blurs the differences between government and private- sector organization and behavior, and new graduates can have a hard time deciding on the best working environment. </p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>The Government Is Missing Opportunities</strong> </p> <p>The federal government is missing opportunities to recruit top talent because it has failed to debunk the myths that steer new graduates into the private sector and turned away candidates early in the process by maintaining archaic application and hiring processes that today’s top professionals bypass for the private-sector jobs that come more easily and quickly.</p> <p> </p> <p>The mounting federal challenges—fighting global terrorism and restoring livelihoods and infrastructure after disasters in the United States and abroad— are not enough to draw new graduates into public- service careers.The Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit group that seeks to revitalize the federal civil service, surveyed 805 college seniors in early May 2005. It found that only about 21 percent said 9/11 made them more interested in working for the U. S. government. According to the organization’s president and chief executive officer, Max Stier, “Students don’t hold government jobs in very high esteem and some students worry they won’t be able to repay their college loans on government salaries.They also see the government as an unwieldy bureaucracy in which promotions will come too slowly. What’s more, they think government red tape will prevent them from having much of an impact.” </p> <p> </p> <p>Another highly qualified young respondent said that the long application process, with its months of waiting, was frustrating and a deterrent. A recent article in <em>The Washington Post</em>, “Questionnaire Can Shut Out Entry-Level Applicants,” highlighted the frustration felt by new college graduates who want public-sector jobs but can’t get through the application process to even get an interview. On the bright side, many agencies are creating a more entrepreneurial environment that appeals to the savvy young professionals who are also drawn to the missions of particular agencies and a public-service career. However, if the talented and dedicated can’t get through the front door, then the agencies’ efforts only serve the current population of workers—largely made up of senior officials who entered federal service for different reasons and have different expectations of their agency at this point in their careers.</p> <p> </p> <p>The federal government needs to emphasize the characteristics that distinguish it from the private sector, correcting the misperceptions that deter the young from public service. Organizations like the Partnership for Public Service are working to “rebrand” government, but many of the solutions need to come from government itself. Federal agency strategic planning needs to focus on streamlining the application process and improving recruitment while accomplishing the mission. Part of that strategy should be the engagement of young professionals in the federal government who can contribute to improving the perception of the public sector and serve as recruiters, particularly by sharing their own experience in entering and selecting careers in public service. </p> <p> </p> <p>The Young Government Leaders (YGL) organization plans to take on some of these issues using a bottom- up, cross-government approach. With over 450 young federal employees in many different agencies, YGL has created a forum for addressing not only issues that young workers face after they have entered the public-sector workforce, but also a longer-term strategy for growing that workforce and preparing them to be tomorrow’s government leaders. By finding ways to change the perception of public service, YGL hopes to catalyze a government recruitment campaign and take part in safeguarding the federal workforce.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Adrienne Spahr</strong>, <em>a member of the Young Government Leaders organization, is an analyst with the international affairs and trade team at the U. S. Government Accountability Office. She can be reached at spahra@ gao. gov.</em><br /></p></div> </article> <article> <h1>Getting Ahead of the Curve: Baltimore and CitiStat</h1> <p>admin — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:29:00 GMT</p> <div id="contentText"> <p><em>CitiStat maximizes Baltimore’s efficiency by using data from the city’s 311 call center to manage agencies and adjust performance as necessary.</em></p> <p> </p> <p>Carl Fillichio</p> <p> </p> <p>In remarks at Harvard University four years ago, Baltimore Mayor Martin J. O’Malley said, “In order to change the outcomes produced by government, you have to change what government does.” Baltimore was doing just that, he went on to say, by measuring what government produces “and creating a mechanism to make timely changes.” </p> <p> </p> <p>When he took over city hall at the end of 1999, O’Malley faced an unusual management challenge. To begin with, Baltimore depends on significant federal and Maryland state support to meet its needs. In many instances, that requires the city to carry out federal, state, and city directives concurrently, sometimes at variance with one another. </p> <p> </p> <p>Then there is the fact that Maryland, not Baltimore, runs a number of important city operations, among them mass transit, schools, prisons, and the port. In addition, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development controls a fraction of Baltimore’s many vacant houses because of foreclosures made via the city’s housing authority. Finally, Baltimore was burdened by a high crime rate and personal income and home values well below the state average. The city’s income tax revenue had been undermined by erosion of its tax base. </p> <p> </p> <p>All this showed the clear need for vigilant stewardship of financial resources and thorough accountability for what the city does. So O’Malley looked north, to New York City. He had heard about CompStat, a program that uses computers and maps to track locales where assaults, burglaries, and murders occur most often—a system that puts police on the spot to prevent crime from happening. Persuaded that this kind of fact gathering, with its intense engagement of police commanders, could apply to all government activities, O’Malley adapted the method to his own city, beginning in mid-2000 with Baltimore’s Bureau of Solid Waste. </p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>The Birth of CitiStat</strong> </p> <p>That was the birth of CitiStat, which grew to embrace nearly two dozen city agencies. Cranked into the program is the city’s 311 call manager operation. Call manager gives citizens quick, easy access to report problems and steers reports to the proper agencies for fast response. Together with operations data reported at frequent intervals by city agencies, the information collected by call manager supplies critical input into the CitiStat process. </p> <p> </p> <p>How exactly does CitiStat work? Every two weeks, city agencies covered by the system must work up and submit reports on an extensive range of performance and human resources data and indicators. The reports range along a spectrum of information that usually includes progress toward agency goals and effectiveness in managing decisions such as overtime and employee leave. Twice monthly, the mayor, his deputy, and selected cabinet members grill agency heads and their management teams on what they have reported. These meetings take place in a specially designed briefing room, equipped with two projection screens that portray the report information. The mayor and his team (the mayor calls them his command staff) ask agency leaders to account for their performance. </p> <p> </p> <p>Problems are identified, and when necessary the agencies get help to tackle them. Each two weeks’ worth of data reported by an agency frames short- and long-term adjustments of resources throughout the organization. The changes affect the agency’s pursuit of its mission immediately and over time; later meetings judge how effective they have been. Staff analysts assigned by CitiStat to each agency study reports, highlight important issues, and produce charts, maps, and photos that portray or supplement the data reported, all part of the screen displays at the biweekly sessions. </p> <p> </p> <p>In effect, CitiStat runs Baltimore’s government, maximizing its efficiency by using numbers to see what agencies are doing and closely adjusting performance as necessary. CitiStat guides the development of strategies and their execution, holds managers and workers accountable, and almost constantly measures and evaluates results to generate more effective operations.</p> <p> </p> <p>A small but characteristic example is the system’s management of a big backlog in uninspected food establishments. The city’s health standards mandate a hazardous analysis and critical control point inspection of restaurants at least once a year. At one point, though, the backlog had risen into the hundreds and was reported in the media. At its next CitiStat session, the city health department revealed that it had standards for the frequency of restaurant inspections, but no productivity standards for inspectors. With CitiStat’s help, the department soon developed them. Inspectors were required to visit more restaurants per workday without reducing the quality of inspections. A few months later, the department had eliminated the backlog. </p> <p> </p> <p>Not to be overlooked is the continual interaction CitiStat maintains between agency leadership and cabinet officials with cross-city responsibilities for personnel, budget and financial operations, labor-management issues, legal matters, and technology. This interaction is a proven route to better overall coordination and cost effectiveness in municipal government, not to mention sustained and increased progress toward the city’s and mayor’s goals. O’Malley says that CitiStat has pushed Baltimore “from an old spoils-based system of patronage politics” to a better way of operating based on results. </p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>New City Management Techniques</strong> </p> <p>This brisk advance to the forefront of city management techniques, however, has not involved a parallel move into fragile, expensive high technology to make it work. </p> <p> </p> <p>Instead, the system has relied on information technology already in place. Payrolls and geographic information system mapping are among the preexisting capabilities that allow the city to track activities like road repair, snow removal, recycling, sick and accident leave, and overtime. This monitoring is audited and strengthened by regular field tests and citizen satisfaction surveys. </p> <p> </p> <p>To do a better job by using systems already in hand, rather than by obtaining and imposing costly new technology is, in its own way, to manage innovatively. Moreover, the city has improved accountability by combining CitiStat’s biweekly consultative and accountability process with the annual reporting of performance data required by the state and federal entities that, as noted, fund a number of Baltimore programs. Those creative approaches are two of the underlying qualities that helped propel CitiStat to an Innovations in American Government Award in 2004. To each of its annual winners, this award brings a $100,000 cash prize, which winners use to promote public-sector innovation as well as replication of their achievements. The Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University and the nonprofit Council for Excellence in Government administer the award program. </p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>Results </strong></p> <p>CitiStat’s results are, of course, what caught the attention of the award judges: </p> <ul> <li>In its first year, the system paid for itself for at least several years by saving $13 million, including a drop in overtime outlays alone of $5.8 million. Under CitiStat, nearly all potholes are repaired within forty-eight hours and more trees are planted. Complaints filed by Baltimore against lead paint poisoning increased by almost 500 percent from the 1990s; the initiation and completion of lead-safe abatements in housing units are both up strongly. Violent crime has dropped by 48 percent, and the city is leading the nation in the rate of reduction of violent crime since 1999. Towing of abandoned vehicles increased 22 percent. In 2002, the city removed four times more graffiti than two years earlier. Integrating the city’s call center into CitiStat resolved 1.2 million service requests from citizens; there were 1.5 million calls and not one was lost. By 2003, according to O’Malley’s office, CitiStat had saved $100 million through cost reductions, new revenue streams, and efficiencies such as the competitive outsourcing of security, health clinic, and custodial services. <br /><br /> <li>City agencies are now practiced and knowledgeable in the art of reporting operational data and connecting that information to their performance in many areas of municipal responsibility. Because heads of agencies have continuous access to real-time performance information, their allocations of resources are faster, better calibrated, and smarter than in the days when most operations were examined only in annual budget reviews. <br /><br /> <li>Baltimore residents benefit, and not only from the money CitiStat has saved. The numbers that depict the actions of city government are quickly and easily accessible online. CitiStat regularly posts reports on its Web site and sends weekly updates to thousands of e-mail recipients. Through CitiStat’s citizen surveys, residents also get the chance to feed back their judgments on the quality and timeliness of services. In all, the system permits them to become increasingly involved in public decisions, boosting the effectiveness of the city’s government and raising public confidence. </li></ul> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>New Challenges</strong> </p> <p>Professor Lenneal Henderson, an experienced observer, has identified some latent problems that CitiStat will have to consider. One is what he calls “the potential myopia of a biweekly accountability system” that “can obstruct longer-range strategic planning.” Another is Baltimore’s extensive reliance on services provided by numerous vendors, nonprofit and educational organizations, and foundations. CitiStat, he says, will be challenged “to work with city agencies to more effectively orchestrate the activities of these networks”— whose work he regards as just as critical as that of city agencies themselves—“with the city’s policy and administrative goals.”</p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>Replication </strong></p> <p>Word of this statistics-driven concept has traveled far, and the approach is being widely adapted. More than a hundred national, state, and local governments and international organizations have sent representatives to Baltimore. CitiStat programs, or essential elements of the Baltimore prototype, are operating in Miami, Pittsburgh, Providence, Syracuse, and St. Louis. In a Serbian city, Indjija, gravediggers reportedly keep better track of the bodies they bury, thanks partly to CitiStat. </p> <p> </p> <p>Clear effectiveness and appeal are obvious reasons for this extensive replication of the CitiStat system. Others are low startup and annual operating costs: $20,000 to create and equip a briefing room, about $350,000 a year for the first three years of activity. In addition, CitiStat uses only off-the-shelf software. Its technological infrastructure, its managers say, is adaptable and easy to use. They also point to CitiStat’s open sharing of its models, templates, and analytical methods.</p> <p> </p> <p>In a 2002 speech at Brown University, O’Malley predicted that CitiStat would soon be the way many cities are managed. “With $20,000, off-the-shelf software, and a few good people,” he said, “you can revolutionize city government.” He is clearly proving that prediction.</p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>Reference</strong></p> <p>Henderson, Lenneal J. <em>The Baltimore CitiStat Program: Performance and Accountability.</em> Managing for Results series of the IBM Endowment for the Business of Government, 2003. Professor Henderson is a Senior Fellow at the William Donald Schaefer Center for Public Policy at the University of Baltimore. Other information herein is also derived from this publication.</p></div> </article> <article> <h1>Pay for Performance</h1> <p>admin — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:26:00 GMT</p> <p><em><a href="http://thepublicmanager.org/cs/blogs/featured_articles/Articles%20Images/featureArticle08-04.jpg"></a>How pay for performance has emerged as the new model for federal human resources pay practice and how executives and managers will be challenged to solve its complexities.</em></p> <p> </p> <p> A. C. Hyde </p> <p> </p> <p>This year’s public Management Fad of the Year proves that a past record of futility does not preclude ultimate triumph. Pay for performance has been proposed, debated, and dismissed for over fifty years in public personnel management. And now, although legal challenges have been filed, pay for performance emerges as the new model for federal human resources pay practice and the cornerstone of federal public management strategy. </p> <p> </p> <p>But first, a brief aside is in order to restate the premise for this award. For our first issue in the millennium, <em>The Public Manager</em> inaugurated the idea of bestowing a Management Fad of the Year (like <em>Time’s</em> Woman or Man of the Year) on whatever management concept, idea, process, technique, and strategy most dominated the federal public management landscape. Choosing the title “Fad of the Year” was, we explained back then, “…deliberate, hopefully provocative, and not intended as derogatory.”</p> <p> </p> <p>And with each year’s award, we’ve respectfully repeated the caveat that fads have an impact and are important. As we explained then, “Looking back over the last two decades, one can see a number of ‘dominant’ management concepts—from total quality management and re-engineering to reinvention and downsizing that once commanded the public management headlines. None of these has been relegated to the trash heap. While some have been recycled, modularized, or even redefined, they have become part of our basic management tool kit and our vocabulary.”</p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>And the Nominees Are…</strong></p> <p>Perhaps it’s the timing or coincidence, but this annual article has come to be more and more influenced by the Academy Awards in making the final selection and bestowing the award. Instead of just launching into the discussion of the merits and prospects for the Management Fad of the Year, it’s become customary to note and say a few words about the other nominees. And since we’ve been at this for five years now, we’re even tempted to suggest that there should be a “lifetime achievement award” to contenders that perennially come up short. </p> <p> </p> <p>Anyway, this year’s nominees are an interesting group. Supply chain management (SCM) was a new nominee that made quite a splash on the public management landscape, aided by a three-issue double article forum in the <em>Harvard Business Review</em> lauding “truly revolutionary changes” to a core process that is…“accomplished by means of mind-boggling technological innovations, clever new applications of old ideas, seemingly magical mathematics, powerful software, and old-fashioned concrete, steel, and muscle.” SCM also got its own special issue in the <em>California Management Review</em>. Surely SCM will be a contender to deal with in 2005. </p> <p> </p> <p>Another nominee was network governance. That may not be the right name to give to this rising issue area loosely centered around migrating from hierarchical bureaucratic organizations to more collaborative alliances of public, nonprofit, and private organizations. Much of this growing movement is driven by public policy advocates who have been arguing for a decade that government is out, governance is in. A recent work (reviewed in the last issue of <em>The Public Manager</em>), Goldsmith and Eggers’ <em>Government by Network</em>, uses the subtitle—<em>The New Shape of the Public Sector</em>—to describe the significance of what’s involved here. </p> <p> </p> <p>The last nominee was one that has come up every year; 2004 was an interesting year for the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and results management. It saw a first wave (well, maybe a wavelet) of public management textbooks and academic journal articles that viewed results management as core management as opposed to a legislated reporting requirement or the usual executive mandate. These works and others promise a more serious discussion of what high performance is and what different models exist for performance results measurement. With a little rebranding, one can see results management being recast as “high-performance management.” At a minimum, it should be given our first aforementioned lifetime achievement award to public management. </p> <p> </p> <p>And the winner is pay for performance—a rather different kind of choice among the nominees. For one thing, pay for performance is only a part of a larger management reform: civil service modernization or pay modernization. However, it’s the most controversial and significant part.</p> <p> </p> <p>Furthermore, while viewed as a radical change, it is not described as a reform. Indeed the word “reform” seems to have somehow disappeared from the public management vocabulary, as if it had become politically incorrect. Both the influential U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) <em>White Paper on Federal Pay</em> (2002) and the <em>Volcker II Commission Report</em> (2003) omit the word reform in their advocacy of change. OPM’s White Paper is entitled “A Fresh Start for Federal Pay: The Case for Modernization.” Volcker II’s report is entitled <em>Urgent Business for America: Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21st Century</em>. The word reform does not appear in any of the fourteen recommendations and the recommendation on pay (number eleven) states simply: “More flexible personnel management systems should be developed by operating agencies to meet their special needs.” One would think from these inferences that all that’s involved here is a little loosening up and getting a new wardrobe. Obviously, public managers know that’s not the case. </p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>The Merits of Pay for Performance in Historical Context</strong></p> <p>Personnel textbooks have ranted about the terrible effects of public-sector pay systems for years. The compensation chapter of the first edition of <em>Personnel Management in Government</em> in 1978 states, “It is very difficult to convince employees that their pay is fairly arrived at when they have before them on a daily basis other more highly paid employees, who serve not as role models that one should strive to emulate, but rather as glaring examples of the inequities of the pay program.”</p> <p> </p> <p>That was fairly typical of the “personnel bashing” style of many of the behavorialists critiquing public personnel. What we lacked in data to validate our observations, we made up for verbally. But even that assessment was primarily aimed at the dysfunctionality of the classification system and an evaluation system that made grade inflation at Harvard looked tame. For most of the twentieth century, federal agencies evaluated individuals in terms of merit based on a list of behavioral traits. They developed performance appraisal systems tied to behaviorally anchored rating scales that defined basic levels of service from unsatisfactory to outstanding. Almost inevitably, the result was rating inflation in which 90 percent of employees rated were assessed at above satisfactory ratings, drawing the ire of critics who contended that this facet alone invalidated the entire performance appraisal system. </p> <p> </p> <p>Performance-based pay was touted as the solution. As Table 1, taken from a recent U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) presentation shows, it began with efforts to provide small annual bonuses (incentive awards and quality step increases). The first big reform steps were taken as key parts of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978— establishing larger cash awards and managerial bonuses and later limiting the percentage of employees who could get awards. But within a decade, the pay-for-performance movement had basically faltered. In its 1991 assessment <em>Pay for Performance</em>, the National Research Council concluded that there were fundamental underlying difficulties to resolving tensions “between the potential benefits of pay for performance and the reality of federal personnel and compensation systems.”</p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>Balkanization</strong></p> <p>But the 1990s saw a major shift in federal management strategy. With the advent of performance results budgeting through GPRA and other new public management approaches being advocated—like performance-based organizations—management strategists were arguing that organizations had to relate organizational outcomes or results measures to individual performance objectives. Rather than try to force through a system-wide reform, the management strategy shifted to individual agencies. When the Federal Aviation Administration and the Internal Revenue Service were beset by management crises, part of the solution was to give each agency authority to create its own pay system. As the “Balkanization” of the General Schedule continued into the Bush administration, the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense were given authority to create their own personnel and pay systems. Both made pay for performance centerpieces for “modernization.”</p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>Table 1.</strong></p> <table class="" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"> <tr> <td class=""> <p><strong>1954 </strong></p></td> <td class=""> <p>Incentive awards program greatly expanded to encourage managers to reward outstanding contributors </p></td></tr> <tr> <td class=""> <p><strong>1962 </strong></p></td> <td class=""> <p>Federal Salary Reform Act provided managers with quality step increase to reward top performers Civil Service Reform Act passed • Performance appraisal reforms</p></td></tr> <tr> <td class=""> <p><strong>1978 </strong></p></td> <td class=""> <p> • Large cash awards for employees • Merit pay and cash awards for GS13–15 managers • Establishment of Senior Executive Service (SES) and performance incentives • Demonstration projects (Pay-banding, China Lake, etc.) </p></td></tr> <tr> <td class=""> <p><strong>1980–1982 </strong></p></td> <td class=""> <p>Bonuses initially limited to 25% of salary and later reduced to 20% of career SES members </p></td></tr> <tr> <td class=""> <p><strong>1984 </strong></p></td> <td class=""> <p>Congress created Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRS) to replace merit pay for mid-level managers </p></td></tr> <tr> <td class=""> <p><strong>1989 </strong></p></td> <td class=""> <p>Agencies covered by Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) received authority to develop their own pay systems </p></td></tr> <tr> <td class=""> <p><strong>1990 </strong></p></td> <td class=""> <p>Concerns about pay resulting in recruitment and retention problems lead to the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA) </p></td></tr> <tr> <td class=""> <p><strong>1993 </strong></p></td> <td class=""> <p>PMRS terminated </p></td></tr> <tr> <td class=""> <p><strong>1995 </strong></p></td> <td class=""> <p>Performance management systems decentralized Federal Aviation Administration received authority to develop a new compensation system </p></td></tr> <tr> <td class=""> <p><strong>1998 </strong></p></td> <td class=""> <p>Internal Revenue Service received authority to redesign its pay system </p></td></tr> <tr> <td class=""> <p><strong>2000 </strong></p></td> <td class=""> <p>OPM decentralized control of SES performance ratings </p></td></tr> <tr> <td class=""> <p><strong>2002 </strong></p></td> <td class=""> <p>Homeland Security Act created Department of Homeland Security and provided authority for it to design its own pay system </p></td></tr> <tr> <td class=""> <p><strong>2003 </strong></p></td> <td class=""> <p>National Defense Authorization Act for ﬁscal year 2004 granted the Department of Defense authority to develop and implement a new pay system Human Capital Performance Fund established </p></td></tr> <tr> <td class=""> <p><strong>2004 </strong></p></td> <td class=""> <p>SES pay-for-performance plan implemented </p></td></tr></table> <p><em>Source: Office of Policy Evaluation, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.</em></p> <p> </p> <p>Pay-for-performance systems based on results make several key assumptions. First, the organization has readily measurable results that can be transferred from organizational levels to managerial levels and ultimately work groups and individuals. Second, managers can and will make both fair and candid assessments of their subordinates. Third, individuals will be motivated by pay levels that differentiate between those who carry the true workload of the organization and those—recently identified by <em>The Wall Street Journal</em>—as employees who are “actively disengaged” at work. The latter concept is perhaps a new way of looking at the attitudes of those who once might be called “poor performers” but are in fact individuals who see a job as time spent on the job as opposed to time spent doing significant work. Here lies the true test of pay for performance: ensuring sufficient variability in pay so outstanding performers get large rewards, average performers get smaller raises (to “maintain buying power”), and poor performers get no increase.</p> <p> </p> <p>Not every public-sector manager or employee is going to like the new brand of pay-for-performance management. Indeed, the most recent (2000) MSPB survey of federal employees showed the desire for a good performance rating as a distant ninth on the list of fifteen top motivators for performance—being important to only 10 percent of those surveyed. Of course, the survey can’t separate employee disrespect for current inflated appraisal systems from disinterest. More interesting is the third-place rating given to monetary awards, which appealed to 27 percent of those surveyed. There may be more interest in variable pay levels among public-sector employees than suspected. Of course, pay-for-performance advocates will be quick to point out that the system is supposed to be fair but should not please all employees.</p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>Issues for Today and the Future</strong></p> <p>Clearly, federal agencies will enter into this brave new world of pay for performance/results with some trepidation. To begin with—as a study by the MSPB has noted—past trends in performance appraisal systems (with the active and strong encouragement of federal unions) have been exactly in the opposite direction. From 1995 to 2000, the number of performance appraisal systems that have only two levels (essentially pass-fail) increased from less than 5 percent to nearly 25 percent. Clearly, increased training budgets to prepare managers and the long lead time to implement pay for performance will be needed. </p> <p> </p> <p>Another complicating factor will be the pressures of “competitive government.” Managers taking charge of agencies or enterprises, who must compete with contractors or even other governmental competitors, are going to push hard for pay-for-performance flexibilities to reward successful results, pay for new innovations, and possibly most important of all, lower compensation levels when failure occurs. </p> <p> </p> <p>Another issue will be all the intangibles that go into federal public-service work. Beth Asch’s recent review of “The Economic Complexities of Incentive Reforms” (<em>High-Performance Government</em>, Rand, 2005) reminds public managers that if pay for performance is going to work, gains in productivity have to exceed costs of performance measurement. And performance measurement in federal work is not exactly simple. Much of the work activity performed by federal workers is multidimensional, done in teams, subject to multiple employers and multiple objectives, and longer term. Any number of studies by research psychologists testify that linking pay to individual results has negative consequences—undermining teamwork, levels of cooperation, and even relationships among teams within an organization. </p> <p> </p> <p>Asch looks at one other critical issue that has to be factored in—promotion rates. One aspect is simply the separate impact on promotions in raising pay and attracting and retaining talent. Equally important, however, is the fact that measurement costs for promotion are lower than pay for performance. As she concludes, “What is required in a promotion system is that the supervisor determine who has the best performance, not the exact level of performance of each employee. It may be considerably easier to determine ranking than to determine the precise level of performance.” One shouldn’t forget, of course, that ranking is usually not allowed in pay-for-performance systems. </p> <p> </p> <p>Perhaps the most important issue for the future will be making the system fair and transparent. What that really means is another issue. Consider Steve Barr’s October 2004 article in <em>The Washington Post</em>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Fairness counts, especially when it comes to bonuses. An inspector general review found that the Transportation Security Administration [TSA] handed out bonuses last year to 76 percent of its executives but to only 3 percent of its rank-and-file employees. The TSA also gave time off from work as a reward to an additional 7 percent of the “rank-and-file.” The inspector general’s report called the pronounced tilt toward management “a substantial inequity” and recommended that the TSA “provide more equitable treatment for lower graded employees when making performance award decisions.” </p></blockquote> <p> </p> <p>Essentially, an inspector general concludes, 75 percent plus for managers and 10 percent for employees is unfair. Would TSA have been criticized if it had given cash awards to 50 percent of its rank-and-file employees? What kind of management team could TSA hope to retain if it awarded only 50 percent of its managers bonuses? What should the percentages be? In discussing this issue with some union leaders, their perspective on fair and transparent emerges something like this. Transparent means a system you can see right through in order to determine how the decisions were made. Employees need to be able to see if they were treated fairly, and shouldn’t we want employees to be able to see what they need to do better to get a reward next time? </p> <p> </p> <p>Going beyond that focus on the individual, unions also want to be able to see how various classes of employees did. This is not only a concern for the “protected classes” of various civil rights laws, but also the nonprotected classes. For example, did all the money go to a few occupations or grades at the expense of lower-graded minorities? Did a disproportionate share go to political appointees? The new system should be run in a way that there is nothing to hide. If someone is trying to hide any portion of it, the obvious message is that they are embarrassed by it or can’t explain to others what did happen. </p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>Philosophical Challenge</strong> </p> <p>Beyond these issues lies a final, more philosophical challenge to pay for performance. As public management strategists celebrate the final acceptance of the concept, they will devote more time to working the details and detailing the working parts of the new systems. Certainly, public-sector pay can be reshaped as a powerful tool in pushing public management into a new era. But two costs should be kept in mind. Beth Asch would remind us that public-sector work is more complicated and that the cost of performance measurement must be clearly outweighed by some measurable increase in organizational productivity. The second is a simple reminder of the first tension between the potential of pay for performance and the reality of federal personnel systems noted by the National Research Council in its 1991 report—that of the potential impact on the neutral competence of the public service. As political factions in this country become increasingly partisan, “the centrality of the principle of neutral competence in the public service” may be something we regret subjecting to the economic complexities of compensation incentive reforms. They never had a conversation about the expected outcomes of their joint efforts. </p> <p> </p> <p>Input from stakeholders is essential for quality outcomes and evaluations. Their experiences and expertise can raise issues that should be addressed when developing outcomes. Their input ensures that relevant information is collected to measure outcomes and complete evaluations. In addition, collaboration supports a cycle of continuous learning because stakeholders are encouraged to use feedback from results measurement to guide their work.</p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>Integrate Results Measurement into Program Planning</strong></p> <p>It is unfortunate that most evaluation planning occurs toward the end of a funding cycle. This adds to the perception that conducting evaluations is an extra burden for the organization. This perception is accurate because by waiting until the end to plan for an evaluation, the staff must now find time to create evaluation questions, review documents, find program participants to interview, analyze data, and write a report. This burden diminishes when evaluation is integrated into the process of program development and review. If outcomes and evaluation questions are identified when a program begins, it is easier to create useful data collection tools that can be modified throughout the life of the program. There should be a priority on reviewing reporting requirements to see how they can be used to support current evaluation needs. What staff members resent most is an onerous process that asks them to fill out too many forms. When evaluation activities are incorporated into the normal work day, employees understand why information is being collected and how it will be used. </p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>Tell Your Story, Communicate Your Findings</strong></p> <p>Evaluation helps an organization share its successes and failures. I encourage organizations to develop a dissemination plan that will help them create and take advantage of opportunities to share conclusions from their results management activities. This information should not be left in the form of a final report. Instead, the report content should be “cut and pasted” to inform different audiences about the findings they will find most interesting. Every stakeholder is a different audience. They should review the array of written materials produced in their organizations. Results information can be integrated into newsletters, press releases, Web sites, mailings, solicitations, grant proposals, brochures, and annual reports. Don’t rely upon written materials. Consider presentations at workshops and conferences. If an organization is included in an evaluation with other organizations, ask whether each can have a separate report summarizing its relevant findings. To encourage participation in a multiyear evaluation of two pilot projects, I was asked to prepare shorter and separate evaluation reports for each project. Though everyone was interested in the overall success of the initiative, the executive directors for the pilot organizations saw how they could use the evaluation findings to support their program.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>A. C. Hyde</strong><em> is a senior staff consultant with Brookings Executive Education, formerly the Center for Public Policy Education. Special thanks to <strong>John Crum</strong> of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Office of Policy Evaluation for his recent superb presentation at the 4th annual San Francisco U.S. Government Accountability Office–American Society for Public Administration spring forum on performance and having shaped the issues, but of course not the content, of this article.</em></p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Innovation Network. “Evaluation in Nonprofit Organizations.” Presentation by Monica Heuer and Veena Pankaj. April 2004.</p> <p> </p> <p>Patton, Michael Quinn. <em>Utilization-Focused Evaluation.</em> 3rd ed. (SAGE Publications, 1996). </p> <p> </p> <p>United Way of America. <em>Agency Experiences with Outcome Measurement: Survey Findings 2000</em>, http://national.unitedway.org/ outcomes/files/agencyom.pdf.</p> <p> </p> <p>———. <em>United Way Outcome Measurement Resource Network, Frequently Asked Questions</em>, http://national.unitedway.org/outcomes/. 2005</p> </article> <article> <h1>Curbing Corruption in the Republic of South Africa</h1> <p>admin — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:21:00 GMT</p> <div id="contentText"> <p><em><a href="http://172.18.35.176/cs/blogs/featured/featureArticle08-05.jpg"></a></a>Learn how new measures put in place since the 1996 Constitution, such as the drafting of codes of conduct, whistle-blowing, and training initiatives, are making public officials more aware of the need for ethical conduct in their public dealings.</em></p> <p> </p> <p>I.W. Ferreira, M.S. Bayat </p> <p> </p> <p>There is nothing new about corruption; it has been around for a long time. As far back as 300 B.C., Katilya, the then Prime Minister and Emperor Chandragupta of India, identified forty ways of embezzlement of funds by employees in the private sector, and he had this to say about government officials: </p> <blockquote> <p>Just as it is impossible not to taste the honey or the poison that finds itself at the tip of the tongue, so it is impossible for a government servant not to eat up at least a bit of the King’s revenue. </p></blockquote> <p>Corruption is an increasingly important clandestine driving force in South Africa, and it is beginning to seriously undermine the faith of the citizens in the very foundations and fabric of society—in particular the market economy system, which is supposed to be free and fair. A democratic society expects to be ruled by a just and egalitarian government, and citizens are now questioning their public officials as well as the rule of law by an independent, corruption-free, and fair judicial system. </p> <p> </p> <p>Evidence of corrupt practices is easily found: </p> <ul> <li>Ghost employees in the government service <li>Fraud in the hospitals and school meals schemes <li>Unauthorized use of credit cards by officials <li>All manner of corruption in the police force <li>Leaking of examination papers <li>Issue of fraudulent university degrees and identity documents <li>Electoral fraud <li>False subsistence and transport claims by members of Parliament and medical doctors <li>“Kickbacks” in tender procedures <li>Pension payments to individuals under the age of sixty and to dead people <li>Payment for submission of applications for employment. </li></ul> <p>And the list goes on.</p> <p> </p> <p>In addition to media evidence and information from courts, official and unofficial reports suggest that corruption in South African society is not a matter of exceptional individual behavior, but a common practice affecting many sectors of public activity. Unfortunately, despite available evidence, corruption is substantially less visible than many other types of crime, and this is perhaps why it has not been attacked with the appropriate vigor. Corruption is a consensual crime in the sense that all participants are usually willing parties, who together have an interest in concealing it. Therefore, it involves fewer conscious victims and witnesses. </p> <p> </p> <p>The sections that follow highlight key reports on corruption in South Africa. We then describe an organizational ethic that has begun to emerge since the 1996 Constitution, including anticorruption efforts, legislative and administrative measures, and, finally, the role of the Public Protector. </p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>Reports on Corruption in South Africa</strong> </p> <p>The Commission for Public Service Innovation (CPSI) published the following key statistics:</p> <ul> <li>In South Africa, 30 percent of the potentially economically active population are unemployed. <li>Twenty percent of households earn less than R800 ($130) per month. In some provinces, notably the Free State and the Eastern Cape, the figure is as high as 46 percent. <li>From 2002 to 2003, crime incidents totaled 2.7 million, or 6,000 crimes per 100,000 people per annum. <li>Only 1.8 percent of Black-African households own a computer—limiting access to technology and information. </li></ul> <p>Corruption in the government service is the major concern among foreign investors. According to the CPSI, a survey of sixty-nine countries ranked corruption as the single largest obstacle to doing business with South Africa. Various bodies in South Africa concern themselves with the issue of corruption. The public media, particularly the popular press, regularly report on corrupt practices in government departments (agencies) throughout the nine provinces. Other bodies, some statutory, others not, act as watchdogs to report on the unethical behavior of public functionaries—including officials and politicians. Among these are the press, the Auditor-General (AG), and the Public Service Accountability Monitor (PSAM),1 which incorporates the Eastern Cape Public Service Accountability Monitor and the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Provincial Internal Audit Unit, and a prominent consulting firm specializing in anticorruption measures, Heath Public Service Consultants. Brief examples of reports by these bodies follow. </p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>The Press</strong> </p> <p>A Sunday newspaper reported on a book, <em>The Crisis of Public Health Care in the Eastern Cape—The Post- Apartheid Challenges of Oversight and Accountability</em>, published by the PSAM, expounding on the reasons for the health care crisis in the Eastern Cape Province as follows: </p> <p> </p> <p>The way the Eastern Cape provincial government spent its health budget has significantly contributed to the public health care crisis in the province, demonstrated in a recently launched book. The book, produced by the PSAM, was launched during the People’s Health Summit in East London. Key findings include: </p> <ul> <li>That over eighty-one percent of the provincial health department’s R25.2 billion budget from 1996 to 2003 was not properly accounted for. This amount (R20.6 billion) was issued with audit disclaimers by the Auditor-General. <li>That over R283 million (nineteen percent) of the infrastructure budget between 1999 and 2004 was unspent. This money should have gone towards maintenance of hospitals, clinics, and health centers in the province. <li>That between 2000 and 2003 the department failed to spend twenty-seven percent of its HIVAIDS budget (R33 million)—and of the spent funds, R90 million was unaccounted for. </li></ul> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>Auditor-General</strong> </p> <p>The AG is the general watchdog of the government over administrative practices of government departments (agencies). Annual AG reports on two departments are described as examples: first, the Department of Defense (DOD) and, second, the South African Management and Development Institute (SAMDI), which is the official training division of the public service.</p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>DOD</strong> </p> <p>Among irregular financial management activities, accruals represent goods or services delivered without an invoice received from the supplier at year-end or with an invoice received but unpaid at year-end. Such information cannot be generated from the accounting systems of the DOD; thus, disclosed accruals are understated by an unknown amount. Also, various loss files could not be submitted for audit purposes, and the accuracy and completeness of funds for irregularities and losses, as disclosed in the financial statements, could not be verified. Moreover, the security and general administration over vehicles are lacking, mainly because policies and procedures are not adequately applied or adhered to, resulting in the following: </p> <ul> <li>Unauthorized trips. The number of vehicles on hand materially differs from those reflected in the stock ledger. <li>Deteriorating vehicles. Vehicles deteriorate to a condition beyond economical repair, mainly as a result of irregular servicing. <li>Irregular repair practices. Vehicles sent for repairs are not serviced on time, and vehicles are stripped of their parts, causing further delays due to budget constraints. </li></ul> <p>An information systems audit of the general controls surrounding the Computer Aided Logistic Management Information Systems (CALMIS) and the Operational Support Information System (OSIS) revealed that the activities of the database administrators were not logged and monitored. This is a significant weakness as these administrators have the highest privilege available on the databases and also perform the incompatible system administrator functions. This weakness potentially allowed the databases to be changed without any record being kept. Such changes can then only be detected by comparing the data with source documents. No confirmation that this function was performed could be obtained. In addition, a number of accounts on the CALMIS UNIX servers do not have passwords. </p> <p> </p> <p>On the basis of the above, no reliance could be placed on the general controls surrounding CALMIS for the regularity audit, and more extensive substantive testing had to be performed to obtain a higher audit assurance. The audit also indicated that limited progress has been made in addressing previously identified issues. Clearly, the report of the AG shows serious shortcomings in the financial management of the DOD that need to be addressed on a priority basis.</p> <p> </p> <p class="pullQuote">According to the CPSI, a survey of sixty-nine countries ranked corruption as the single largest obstacle to doing business with South Africa.</p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>SAMDI </strong></p> <p>The AG report highlights a number of issues, including the following: </p> <ul> <li>Documentation relating to payments is missing. <li>No framework for the allocation of expenditure exists, so no alternative audit procedures could be performed. <li>The AG was unable to verify the completeness and accuracy of expenditures as accounted for in the financial statements. <li>Amounts owed show differences between account records and SAMDI’s financial statements that cannot be verified. </li></ul> <p>The European Commission is also investigating missing documentation relating to payments of R5 million since the commencement of the financial agreement until December 31, 2002. </p> <p> </p> <p>The report of the AG shows serious shortcomings in the financial management of SAMDI, which need urgent attention, also on a parliamentary level. </p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>PSAM</strong> </p> <p>The PSAM published a number of lists detailing actual cases of corruption that took place during 2003–04 in the Eastern Cape provincial government (Table 1). </p> <p> </p> <p>Examples of cases of corruption include the following: </p> <ul> <li>R15 million in pensions paid out to 2,400 under-60s. <li>Twenty-nine officials implicated in a R2.8 million petrol scam. <li>Eastern Cape Safety and Security spokesperson convicted of fraud. <li>Transport official arrested for attempted fraud of R950,000. </li></ul> <p> </p> <table class="" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"> <tr> <td class="" colspan="4"> <p align="center"><strong>Table 1. Cases of Corruption in Eastern Cape Provincial Government (2003–04) </strong></p></td></tr> <tr> <td class=""> <p align="center"><strong>Variable </strong></p></td> <td class=""> <p align="center"><strong>No. of Cases </strong></p></td> <td class=""> <p align="center"><strong>No. Resolved </strong></p></td> <td class=""> <p align="center"><strong>% Resolved </strong></p></td></tr> <tr> <td class=""> <p align="center">Corruption </p></td> <td class=""> <p align="center">345 </p></td> <td class=""> <p align="center">28 </p></td> <td class=""> <p align="center">8 </p></td></tr> <tr> <td class=""> <p align="center">Maladministration </p></td> <td class=""> <p align="center">170 </p></td> <td class=""> <p align="center">3 </p></td> <td class=""> <p align="center">2 </p></td></tr> <tr> <td class=""> <p align="center">Misconduct </p></td> <td class=""> <p align="center">179 </p></td> <td class=""> <p align="center">28 </p></td> <td class=""> <p align="center">15 </p></td></tr> <tr> <td class=""> <p align="center">Conflict of Interest </p></td> <td class=""> <p align="center">6 </p></td> <td class=""> <p align="center">1 </p></td> <td class=""> <p align="center">2 </p></td></tr></table> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>Two employees guilty of check theft. </p> <ul> <li>Health official arrested after cheques disappeared. <li>Pensions paid out to bogus or dead people. KZN Provincial Internal Audit Unit Ernst and Young, in a fraud and corruption survey in South Africa, has confirmed the following statistically: <li>More than 90 percent of fraud and corruption goes undetected. <li>Insiders account for 85 percent of fraud and corruption, divided between staff (30 percent) and managers (55 percent). <li>Of managers guilty of fraud and corruption, 85 percent have less than one year’s service. <li>The largest factor in fraud and corruption is weaknesses in internal control systems. </li></ul> <p>According to the Ernst and Young survey, the areas of prevalence of fraud and corruption in South Africa are bribes, inventory stock, fruitless expenditure, procurement, irregular expenditure, asset theft, unauthorized expenditure, leave, checks, claims, and payroll. The average global loss resulting from fraud per organization is R16.5 million ($2.75 million). The cost of forensic audits amounts to at least R40 million ($7 million) per annum. This money could have been used to alleviate poverty or create jobs.</p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>Heath Consultants</strong> </p> <p>According to Advocate W. H. Heath of Heath Consultants, democracy failed in the recent South African arms deal in that the call by the parliamentary oversight committee for an in-depth investigation by objective experts was never adhered to. In an abrupt about-face, members of the oversight committee completely changed their opinion regarding the investigation of the validity of the arms deal. The general view is that the executive instructed these members to “toe the (party) line.” This violated the separation of powers and therefore democracy. The parliamentary oversight committee did not recommend that the contract be cancelled, but it did propose an investigation into certain glaring flaws in the negotiating process that led to contracts governing the deal. </p> <p> </p> <p>According to Heath, a complete investigation by the agency equipped for that purpose, as recommended by the committee, was not undertaken. This lack of adherence to recommendations of Parliament is the reason why controversy still looms over the deal, even though the contracts were signed by the government some years ago. </p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>Red Flags</strong> </p> <p>Heath Consultants identified scores of “red flags” in arms procurement contracts,2 including the following: </p> <ol> <li>High-ranking government officials establishing offshore companies and bank accounts. <li>Government officials paying for nonexistent goods and services to entities owned by a politician, his associates, or family members. <li>Politicians and government officials purchasing significant assets or investing in high-end real estate. <li>Members of government accumulating unexplained financial wealth, especially if inconsistent with information provided on public disclosure forms. <li>A lack of control over and total disregard for specified and general accounting procedures for purchases of government equipment and use of government funds. <li>Government paying individuals with no justification listed on the books, with checks cashed at exchange houses. <li>A single person in government or a limited group dominating operational, tendering, and financing decisions in defense procurement contracts. <li>An aggressive and dismissive attitude by politicians and arms manufacturing companies toward the findings and advice of independent consultants. <li>Governments not appointing or utilizing agencies established in terms of their constitutions for their designed purposes in large government contracts. <li>Arms manufacturing companies providing excessive incentives for government officials during the tendering process. <li>Governments of arms manufacturing companies assisting these companies financially and diplomatically to secure defense procurement contracts. <li>High-level politicians or arms manufacturing companies with questionable reputations. <li>Governments that are uncommitted to anticorruption measures and their implementation in arms contracts. <li>Lack of qualifications or incompetence of politicians— an easy target for syndicates or arms manufacturers with dubious intentions. <li>Government officials who vehemently retain authority in contracting processes and refuse to delegate to obvious officials within the government. <li>Government officials who override systems such as tendering processes. <li>Governments whose attitude is one of supreme power and little trust. <li>Governments that have little regard for the opinions of and issues raised by opposition parties and other stakeholders representing the interests of the community. <li>Internal government communications that are always from the top down—no proper reporting structures. <li>Politicians who are highly erratic and highly emotional— easily gauged by their public statements, etc. <li>Politicians with high personal debts or financial losses. <li>Politicians with extravagant lifestyles—beyond the means of their office. <li>Close relationships between politicians and certain tendering parties or publicly known relationships with certain private-sector institutions. <li>Too much trust placed in certain key members of government, without a proper review of their performance <li>Reluctance by government to provide constitutionally established agencies with needed information to perform their legal duties. <li>Politicians who frequently rationalize failures in media statements, including rationalizing cost increases in defense and other government contracts. <li>Government officials who enter into regular significant transactions with the same parties on behalf of the state. <li>Failure to have a clear policy to require government officials and decision makers to disclose their interests. <li>Cabinet members (the executive) who have little regard for their accountability to the legislative. <li>Nepotism in government departments and in the tendering process. <li>Property misuse—using state assets to entertain and accommodate parties involved in the tendering process. <li>Many difficult and unexplainable accounting issues in the procurement process—difficult-to-audit financial and related records and difficult-to-establish audit trails. <li>Doubts regarding the independence of government officials and parties contracted by the state to facilitate procurement processes. <li>Payments made to government officials that are not disclosed for tax purposes. 35. A history of failure to record dishonest acts and disciplining of government officials. <li>Inadequate government policies with regard to internal controls in procurement processes. <li>Procurement contracts that are unduly complex and thereby lacking in transparency. <li>An urgent need by governments to report favorable elements of procurement contracts to the public. <li>Costs and expenses of procurement contracts outweighing the military needs of a specific country or its social welfare needs. <li>No division of duties between new contracts approval and authorization for purchasing. <li>Contracts written to limit competition (for example, sole-source contracts). <li>The same manufacturer always winning contracts by small margins. <li>Contracts always going to the bid received last. <li>Splitting one purchase into multiples to avoid the approval process. <li>Paying above-market prices for defense packages. <li>Governments not employing independent consultants or advisors to conduct integrity and due diligence studies on parties in the tendering process. <li>Politicians and others in authority not conceding the problem of corruption. <li>Relative ease with which employees with dishonest intentions can get to know all the loopholes in an organization’s control measures. </li></ol> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>Development of an Organizational Ethic</strong> </p> <p>According to the erstwhile Public Protector, efficiency improvements should not be achieved at the expense of high ethical standards. Moreover, a values-based approach alone is inadequate; corruption is as much about systems as about individual conduct. Thus, the country needs codes of conduct; administrative law mechanisms; whistle-blower protections; effective auditing, monitoring, and law enforcement systems; and training in and support of ethical conduct—all essential components of an ethical public-sector service-rendering environment. </p> <p> </p> <p>The 1996 Constitution commits South Africa to implementing an ethical, accountable, and democratic system of governance. Indeed, the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) is leading the process of transformation to ethical public servant behavior from within the public service. It is complemented by the Public Service Commission, as well as the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration, which both play an essential oversight role. </p> <p> </p> <p>Since the advent of the 1996 Constitution, the South African government has taken significant steps to ensure a clean and accountable administration. In 1999, the National Anti-Corruption Initiative was launched, initializing the creation of a National Anti-Corruption Forum, which contributes towards the establishment of a national consensus and coordination of sectoral strategies against corruption. Its role is to advise the government on national initiatives on the implementation of strategies to combat corruption, share information and best practices on sectoral anticorruption work, and advise sectors on the improvement of sectoral anticorruption strategies. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Legislative and Administrative Measures</strong></p> <p>The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act calls for a high standard of professional ethics— particularly in relation to administration in every sphere of government, organs of state, and public enterprises. It also calls for the following: </p> <ul> <li>Establishment of constitutionally independent bodies, such as the Auditor-General and the Public Protector (national parliamentary ombudsman) <li>A Special Investigative Unit for investigating and recovering misappropriated public monies <li>An Investigating Directorate on Corruption <li>Establishment of inspectors-general within certain state departments (including the military and the police and intelligence services) <li>The Executive Members’ Ethics Act and its Code of Conduct governing the conduct of and disclosure of interests by members of the cabinet, including the president and deputy-president, deputy ministers, and members of provincial executive councils (cabinets) <li>The Code of Conduct for public officials governing relationships with the legislature, executive, public, and colleagues, as well as performance, personal conduct, and disclosure of private interests <li>Service contracts of heads of government departments (and soon their senior officials) requiring them to disclose their financial interests, protecting whistle-blowers in the public and private sectors, and other measures. </li></ul> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>The Role of the Public Protector</strong></p> <p>The Public Protector of South Africa is an ombudsman in the classical sense of the word. The Public Protector has the power to investigate any conduct in state affairs, or in the public administration in any sphere of government, alleged or suspected to be improper or to result in any impropriety or prejudice. The Public Protector has been involved in, or supportive of, many of the developments in the anticorruption efforts described above. This was in furtherance of the constitutional injunction that the Public Protector is an institution to strengthen constitutional democracy in South Africa. The main contribution of the Public Protector is that of investigating, reporting, and taking appropriate remedial action, mostly by way of recommendations. </p> <p> </p> <p>For present purposes it is convenient to distinguish the following “types” of corruption: </p> <ul> <li>Criminal corruption, where the perpetrator can be prosecuted for crimes, including the taking of bribes, fraud, or theft <li>Corruption in the ethical sense, where the act does not constitute a crime, but is nevertheless unethical or in contravention of, for example, a code of conduct <li>Corruption in the sense of a system not working or disintegrating because of, for example, incompetence or negligence. </li></ul> <p>As far as criminal corruption is concerned, the usual reaction to a complaint received by the Public Protector is to refer the matter to the police or prosecuting authorities, which are the appropriate institutions to deal with it. In his role as a receptacle for complaints from members of the public, the Public Protector often receives reports of criminal corruption. However, the Public Protector has an important secondary role to play where the criminal corruption is the result of maladministration within the exploited state institution. A perfect example is the recently concluded Public Protector investigation into corruption in state subsidies paid for subeconomic housing. Private contractors are reportedly misappropriating such subsidies without providing proper housing in return. The Public Protector launched an investigation into the matter, but brought in the Director of Public Prosecutions to deal with the fraud investigations. The Public Protector concentrated his investigation on the procedures for the payment of subsidies in the relevant provincial housing department, and on the adherence to such procedures, with the aim to prevent similar crimes in future. </p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>In this article, we examine corruption and the development of organizational ethic in the South African government and public service since the 1996 Constitution. We provide an overview of anticorruption measures taken by the government in response to widespread and varied corruption in South Africa. Almost ten years after the new Constitution, anticorruption initiatives have clearly become a major and broad government priority. </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Dr I. W. (Naas) Ferreira</strong><em> is a senior lecturer, Faculty of Management, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa. He can be reached at ferreirai@ cput.ac.za.</em></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>M. S. (Saheed) Bayat</strong><em> is Dean of the Faculty and professor of Management, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa. He can be reached at bayatm@cput.ac.za. This article is excerpted from a presentation at the 66th Annual ASPA National Conference held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, April 2–5, 2005. The full paper, including additional references and an extensive bibliography, can be found at www.thepublicmanager. org.</em></p> <p> </p> <p class="subheadBlack2"><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Auditor-General. Report to Parliament on the Financial Statements of the South African Management and Development Institute (SAMDI) for the year ended 31 March 2003 and on the Financial Statements of the DOD for the year ended 31 March 2004. </p> <p> </p> <p>Commission for Public Service Innovation. Report. 2003. </p> <p> </p> <p>The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996. Public Service Accountability Monitor (PSAM) 2003–04. www.case.psam.ru.ac.za/ cmwstypes.asp#Corruption. </p> <p> </p> <p>Transparency International. Report. 2002.</p></div> </article> </main></body></html>