MPA Watson Cases in Managerial Role Playing

INTRODUCTION . THE CHALLENGE OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR With almost five million employees working in the federal government and another fifteen million workers on state and local government payrolls, the public sector of society is both a major employer and major force in the United States. Government touches nearly every facet of our lives. Consider, for instance, an average day in the life of an average person. Let us call her Jane Q. Citizen. Jane awakens each morning to music on her alarm-radio that is played by a radio sta­ tion that must be licensed by the Federal CommunicatLons Commission. The company that built Jane's alarm-radio had to adhere to an array of governmental regulations ~hile manufacturing the alarm clock and licensing requirements on the sale of the unit. The public water supply enables her to bathe in the morning. Afterward, she eats a breakfast of foods tested, tnspected, and regulated by public agencies such as the Food and Drug Ad­ ministration, topped off by a glass of juice from oranges grown by Florida farmers receiving government subsidies and protection, £.t:om rival international producers. The roads on which Jane drives to work were built with public money and managed by the state Depart­ ment.of Transportation; her car includes seat belts and a shatter-proof windshield 1 both re­ .quired by law. Jane is legally able to drive her car to work because she obtained a driver's license from the state, which also registered her automobile and furnished her tags. Had she not driven, she could have used the public transportation system made available by munic­ ipal and county governments. Jane works in a building_ originally approved for development by a local government planning and zoning board, monitored during construction by a building inspector, exam­ ined .by the fire marshal, and deemed safe by occupational safety and health standards. Even the elevator she rode to her job was certified by a government inspector. At work, Jane is protected from discrimination and unfair labor practices by an as~6rtment of statutes, but pays part of her income in taxes for such protecdons. And the list'goes on and on and on. Some of the work performed by private businesses pertains directly or indirectly to government. For instance, many large defense contractors such as General Dynamics are private enterprises, yet they build and furnish weapons and supplies for the U.S. military. S0 1 while both the company and the employees can be classified as belonging to the private sector1 a good portion of their sales and production processes atre in the direct service of 5 6 Introduction governmen t. This is known as privatization, the process whereby public services such as building missiles, operating correctional centers, and collecting trash are unde~taken by private enterprises for government. Such ''contracting out" of public services occurs at all levels of government. Likewise, numerous businesses, consultants, and law firms owe their existence directly to government. For instance, a firm that conducts environmental impact assessments of large,scale development projects, such as airports, performs a service that i~ mandated by law and does it because of government policy. Given the pervasiveness of government in society, public administrators end up per­ forming nearly every type ofjob imaginable, Behind every regulation, inspection, and certi, fication, as well as every road, prison, and court, is a government employee. These public programs and services ate provided within a broad array of settings, by a number of differ­ ent types of agencies, and in response to a host of problems. Indeed, many people work for government, but even those who do not still feel the presence of government in their daily lives. Managing public agencies, programs, and personnel is a challenging and important en~eavor. The Rise of the Administrative State This was not always the case, however. When George Washington assumed the presidency in 1789, the federal govemment consisted of only five departments: state, war, tteasury (de, veloped as a congressional agency), the attorney general, and the postal service-all staffed by a small number of employees. So how did government grow from such modest begin­ ning's to the massive size it is today? There are numerous theories that attempt to explain the growth of government over the course of U.S. history. These include ( 1) majoritarian preference, whereby new roles for government and , thus, the growth of government was sanctioned by the wishes of the majority of the citizenry, (2) the growing complexity of modem society, which necessitated new challei-iges for·government and increased activism by govemment,.,and (3) the interest by public agencies in self,promotion and self-preservation1 which resulted in budgets that are expanded beyond necessary levels by beneficiaries, bureaucrats, and legislators, and public programs that are rarely terminated regardless of their usefulness. The growth of government in terms of size and function also appeats to be a byproduct of crisis and social upheaval. Historically, pedog_s_of social and economic turmoil and threats to national security have been followed by an expansion of the functions of government di­ rectly in response to new demands created by changes in society. As such, the analogy of a staircase can be usea to depict the growth of government over time, whereby periods-at times a few years, at other times a few decades-ofrelatively no change in the nature ofgov­ ernance are punctuated by sudden, dramatic expansions in government. The flat base of the staircase upon which one steps represents the static periods with no significant new direc­ tions in governance. The expansion-the rise to the next step in the staircase-is.triggered by crisis. In other words, the growth of government has not been linear or gradual, but spo­ radic yet continual. From the founding of the nation until the post-Civil War era, the nature of governance in the United States was passive and, for many decades at a time, remained largely-unchanged with few profound new directions in governance. The size of government remained small. All Introduction 7 that changed, however, in the late nineteenth century with the coming of the American Industrial Revolution, the first major event in U.S. history that sparked a fund,1mental change in the practice and size of government. The combination of technological advance­ ments and the rise of the entrepreneurial spirit led to the assembly line and mass produc­ tion process, which changed the way products were produced and marked the country's emergence as an industrialized state. Corresponding to this was a shift in the composition of the population, brought about by migration from rural areas to rapidly growing, new cities of farmers displaced by technology. Such rural flight and waves of immigrants pro­ duced the necessary labor base for new factories. As a result, the largely agrarian and rural character of the country had, by the close of the 1800s, been transformed into an increas­ ingly urban society. The sudden experience with urbanization and industrialization produced some unin, tended and harmful side effects, such as overcrowded cities with unsafe housing, danger­ ous factory work conditions, abusive child labor practices, rampant political corruption, and inadequate public infrastructure. The inadequacies were in the form of a lack of es, sential services like fire and police protection, h ospitals, roads, sanitation systems, and a safe public water supply. In response to these problems, a series of government agencies, programs, and services were established, thus expanding the role' and size of government. Known as the Progressive Movement, the early part of the twentieth century saw govern­ ment become involved in protecting child labor, regulating meat and food production, preventing monopolistic and collusive business practices, and providing adequate munic, ipal services and public infrastructui:e. The Industrial Revolution and subsequent Pro­ gressivism ushered in a new era of government activism and, with it, a need for more professiohally trained, competent public administrators to manage these programs and services. The second era that initiated .a fundamental expansion of the role and size of gov­ ernment came in the late 1920s and early 1930s with the Great Depression. Because of over-speculation on Wall Street, risky pusiness and financial practices, and other factors, the stock market collapsed in 1929 and1 in its wake, thousands of businesses and banks failed. With at least one in four Americans unable to find work, the country was experi. encing pei:haps· its worst economic crisis. The election of Franklin D. Roosevelt as presi­ dent in 1932, with his promise of a New Deal for the country, resulted in the creation of dozens of new agencies and programs. Roosevelt's experiment involved an expansion of government.into new realms like economic management, This was accomplish.ed by as­ sisting struggling banks and businesses, regulating the cost and pricing practices of pri­ vate enterprise, and promoting such employment-generating initiatives as the Works Progress Administration, C ivilian Conservation Corps, and Tennessee Valley Authority, \\'.here the unemployed were put to work in the service of public projects. The New Deal also saw the public sector involved in providing a social safety net for the less fortunate and economically disadvantaged through the creation of social welfare programs and, in 1935, the social security program. The third major period in the expansion of the nature and scope of government oc~ curred in the 1960s. Th e turbulent decade of the 60s saw the birth of several social movements, including the ci.vil rights movement led by the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., the "second wave" of the women's movement, which was launched in 1963 with 8 Introduction the publication of The Feminine Mystique by Betty Freidan, the consumerist movement headed by the activism of Ralph Nader, and, sparked by Rachel Carson's groundbreak­ ing 1962 book, Silent Spring, the environmental movement. A period of social revolu­ tion, the 60s and early 70s witnessed further social change at the hands of the free speech movement, the peace movement and protests of the Vietnam War, and the counter-culture of ''free love" and drugs. The result was that; through the 1960s and 1970s, numerous social and regulatory agenci.es were created and government began in earnest the promotion of civil rights and liberties for all its citizens. President Lyndon B. Johnson launched his. Great Society program in an attempt to alleviate poverty through such social programs as Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and numei:ous other services for the needy which, according to some, ushered in the modem "welfare state. 11 As a result of these historical periods, the function of government was expanded co include economic management, regulation of commerce, promotion of social. equality and justice, and attempts to mitigate poverty. With the expansion of public programs and services, not only were more public administrators needed, hut the importance of the government employee in society was enhanced. This growth in the functions govern­ ment performed is reflected in the size of government in terms of the number of govern­ ment employees. The public sector has become a leading employer. In many communities around the country, especially smaller, rural communities or those that serve as home to military bases, the government is the largest employer in town and, with such a high percentage of the workforce on the public payroll, the government has beco!}te the economic engine of those communities. With so many programs and such sizeable payrolls, not only does the government employ many of its citizens, but the fed­ eral budget has grown accordingly. For instance, the federal budget for fiscal year 2001 was a'whopping $1.8 trillion, which accounted for roughly 19 percent of the country's GNP. 1 Yet, employees of state and local governments comprise the far majority of all public employees. The Fed~ral ..System A defining characteristic of public management is working with other units of govern­ ment and functioning within a system composed of levels of government. This is a prod­ uct of federalism, whereby the national, state, and local governments exist and share _power. Other countries such as Canada and Germany have federal_systems, as. opposed to the United Kingdom or FranceJ both of which have unitary systems where a central gov­ ernment is the legal entity. Federalism by definition distributes power and authority among different levels of government, with each government having its own jurisdiction. The U.S. Constitution is the supretne legal code of the land, and it grants specific powers to the federal government, such as the responsibility for external affairs of the country and national security. Yet, the Constitution reserves other powers for the states, while still other responsibilities such as dealing with crime and welfare are shared between govern­ ments. Here, the concept of interdependence is a primary element of federalism. Another defining characteristic is complexity, if not confusion, as the Constitution dpes not spell out in detail tne exact powers of each governmental unit and the specifics of one govern­ ment's relationship to another. la,troduction 9 The exact parameters of intergovernmental relations (IGR) are thus hard to pinpoint, as are the jurisdictional boundaries, responsibilities, and powers between governmental units. Even though the federal government would appear to be the dominant level of govern~ ment, all levels of government have grown in size and scope of their functions, although re~ cent decades have witnessed far greater growth at the local level (municipalities, counties). As such, several different government agencies might have a role in delivering a certain public program. This means a manager might have to share aut/1.0tity with other agencies or governments. Accordingly, the jurisdictions of governmental units often overlap, and the relationships between them are continually evolving. A common model for understanding the relationship between governments has been to depict IGR as a "layer cake" with the federal government representing the top layer; states serving as the larger, middle layeri and local governments serving the most numerous and broadest- but lowest-level of the tiered cake. However, such a model is too simplistic and inaccurate in its view of orderly, non~overlapping, and independent relations between governments. A more accurate depiction of IGR as a "marble cake'' has been offered by Morton Grodzins and Daniel J. Elazar. 2 Here, the functions of government are mixed to­ gether in terms of toles, dientele, and goals, much as the blending swirls of a marble cake. But even the marble cake analogy fails to capture the true character of IGR.3 In addi­ tion to the three-tiered view of federal, state, and local governments, there are numerous other governmental units such as special districts like water, school, sewage, and health,. public utilities, that do not fit neatly into a characterization of public or private entities, and councils of governments such as cooperative planning commissions. The federal gov­ ernment provides grants-in~aid to state and even local governments and governmental units engage in reiVenue sharing in the joint delivery of public services. Add to this the prolifera• tion of think tanks, nonprofit social organizations, and public/private partnerships between business and government that are a part of the policy process and the interdependence and cooperative nature of management in the public sector becomes a central characteristic. Public managers must be prepared to w·ork within a context of intergovernmental reladons. ·Who are Public Administrators? Technically, public administrators are those individuals working in a managerial capacity in government; managing the people, programs, resources, and budgets of the public sector. However, the term can also apply, to any public employee, whether they work in a manage­ rial capacity or not. As such, forest service rangers, firefighters, correctional officers, and public school teachers are public administrators. Public administration includes the academic and scholarly study, profession, _and prac­ tice of governance. While the work of managing government is the practice. of public ad­ ministratton, the study of the subject can be found in college courses, graduate degree programs, and scholarly journals that focus on public administration. Organizations com~ prised of public managers and those organizations and individuals dedicated to the study arid development of public management form a profession ofpublic administration. Numer~ ous organizations such as the American Society for Public Administration, the Interna­ tional City/County Management Association, and the American P lanning Association are devoted to furthering the profession. 10 Introduction Because public administration is both a multi-disciplinary field of study and a practice that, as was previously mentioned, involves such a wide array of jobs and tasks, it is difficult to arrive at a simple definition. Indeed, scholars in the field have struggled long and hard with the definitional dilemma, and it would appear that an accurate and inclusive, of an all-encompassing, definition that captures the essence of public sector management and the core values of public administration remains to be identified. Among the host of defin­ itions offered by authors of textbooks on public administration are; 1. "Public administration is the use of managerial, political, and legal theories and processes to fulfill legislative, executive, and judlcial government mandates for: 'the provision of regulatory and service functions for society as a whole or for some segments of it.'! 4 2. "Public Administration is the production of goods and services designed to serve the · needs of citizens/consumers. "5 3. "The practice of public administration involves the dynamic reconciliation of vari­ ous forces in government's efforts to manage public policies and programs. 116 4. "Public administration: The process by which resources are marshaled and then used to cope with the problems facing a political community.u? 5. "Public administration is centrally concerned with the organization of government policies and programs as well as the behavior of officials (usually non-elected) for­ mally responsible for their conduct. 118 Fortunately, an assessment of the definitions offered in leading books on the topic con­ tain some commonalities that permit us to gain a better understanding of the nature of just who public administrators are, and what it is that they do. For instance, Richard Stillman 11 9 , identifies the following list of common themes found in most definitions and textbooks: 1. A public setting. 2. The executive branch of government . . 3. Th~ fof!Ilation and development of programs and policies. 4. lmplemenr.atio~ of programs and policies. 5. Service to citizens, the community, and country. 6. The behavior of govemment'officials and agencies. Another way to study public administrators and determine just who can be called pub­ lic administrators is to consider a dernographk profile of government employees. A profile of the typical fe~eral employee in Table I reveals some interesting findings. Profile of Government Employees "The Typical Federal Civilian Employee" Age: 45 .9 years Length of Service: 16.9 years Educational Level: 40.2% hove bachelor's degree Sex: 55.3% mole, 44.7% female Minority: 30% (17.7% Black, 6 .5% Hispanic, 4.4% Asian/Pacific Islander, 2. 1% Native Amer.I Source: Office of Personnel Monagemenl, 2000 Introduction 11 le is apparent that the public sector is more integrated than the private sector, with women and ethnic minorities comprising proportionately a larger percentage of govern­ ment employees than what is found in most busines~es. Moreov_er, women, African Ameri­ cans, and Latinos make up a larger percentage of those serving in adminisgarive positions in government than the percentages present in the private sector. Such findings affirm the existence of the principle of representative bureaucracy. In a democracy it is incumbent upon government to be truly representative of all the people, not only in elected offices but by reflecting in its non-elected rank11 the character and ~ootent of the public. Public adminis­ trators are found in every state, community, and among all classes, races, and segments of American society, reflecting the rich tapestry that is the United States. Another way to ponder the question, "Who are public administrations?" is to consider what it is that public administrators do. In answering such a question, it might be more beneficial to attempt to detertnine what it is they do not do, as managers in the public sector perform nearly every type of function-from technical to scientific to financial- that can be found in society. In recognizing the diversity of tasks performed by public managers, The National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration, an accrediting entity that works with scholars and university programs in public administration, recommends that university programs in the discipline cover such divergent topics as (1) the political, social, and economic environment of the public sector; (2) the management/administrative process; (3) public policy and poUcy analysis; ( 4) analytical tools needed to administer public programs; and (5) organizat_ional behavior in order to accurately capture the range of the field. Public Versus Private Management A common characterization of government employees-or bureaucrats-is that they are less efficient and less effective in their work than employees in the private sector. This per­ ception is popularized in the media, cartoon strips, late-night comedy skits, and on film. It is so pervasive that it is hard to find someone that does not accept the ''fact" of government inefficiency. Even the term bureaucratic has a negative connotation, implying excessive red rape, inefficiency, redundancy, impersonality, and other institutional attributes incongru­ ent with productivity, quality, and customer service. Bureaucrats have become the scape­ goats for nearly any ailment facing society. Politicians even run for office on platforms promising to reform government and reduce the size and power of the "eviP' bureaucracy. It must be conceded that rriany studies have confirmed the existence of problems in public sector productivity. Part of the tationale behind privatization is that private enter, prise can accomplish tasks more efficiently and effectively than government. H owever, such comparative assessments do not always tell the full story, Charles Goodsell10, a profes­ sor at Virginia Tech, takes issue with the foregone conclusion that business outperforms government. Dubbing it the "great falsehood about government," Goodsell maintains that U.S. bureaucracy compares favorably with the performance of governments around the world and even with the private sector in the United States. In short, in spite ofwidespread criticism, n.egative stereotypes, and a concession that bureaucracy could do better, Good­ sell concludes that government actually works. Moreover, studies comparing the perfor­ mance of the public sector with the performance of the private sector do qot reveal the whole truth, in that the duties performed by the two sectors are· often incomparable. The l2 Introduction views of government as inefficient and ineffective often come from unfounded stereotypes; the media, and biased authors, which tend to depict government and public employees solely in negative ways or focus on the exception rather than the rule, which for govern­ ment is usually equivalent to that found in the private sectoL If one considers many of the tasks performed by government, it would appear that society asks the impossible of govern­ ment. Many public endeavors are inherently complex and difficult to remedy, which might explain the poor performance of government in many assessments. The inherent nature of the public sector precludes such comparisons, in that compar­ ing the two sectors might be the classic case of trying to compare apples to oranges. The functions that government undertakes, for instance, differ dramatically from those found in the private sector. Likewise, the underlying principles and objectives of public sector pro• grams are unlike those of the private sector. For example, while private businesses operate to make a profit and pursue market objectives, efficiency, and economy, the government provides services for the people according to universal notions of accommodation, assis­ tance, and equity. While it is possible for businesses to pursue straightforward goals of effi• ciency when producing hamburgers, automobiles, or tennis rackets, it is another matter entirely for government, which provides such items as roads, police protection, and a sys­ tem of justice. Where efficiency in the. pursuit of profits might define the modus operandi for Ford, Nike, or Taco Bell, such narrow, monetary factors are not at the forefront of na­ tional security, public education, or environmental protection, Indeed, output measures in the private sector such as effectiveness (measuring the ac­ complishment of objectives) and efficiency (do outputs exceed inputs) are easy to assess. In government there is often no standard performance measure. To make matters more diffi• cult, some of the tasks undertaken by public. administrators might never be fully accom• plished, such as eradicating homelessness, assuring equality of opportunity to all Americans, preserving natural resources from degradation, or protecting consumers from dangerous and fraudulent business practices. Therefore, managers of public programs must consider non-economic factors in decision making, as opposed to their peers Ji 'the private sector who ~ake decisions based foremost on profits. The choi~es the political system confronts reflect this complexity and lack of clear-cut economic measures: Does one fund AIDS research or a new defense system? Food labeling requirements or trails in national parks? Childhood vaccinations or agricultural supports? Government seeks to both save such endangered species as the whale and support indigenous one decide what constitutes the correct cultures like those native t0 Alaska. Yet, how decision when the native peoples of Alaska claim the right to continue their cultural ,prac­ tice of killing endangered whales? It becomes clear that in the public sector, decisions can­ not be based solely on which program costs the least or is most efficient in operation. At one level, it would appear that the public and private sectors are similar. The core managerial tasks-managing budgets, resources, and personnel-and the basic details that define management are somewhat similar. But, the objectives and rationale underlying the management function are quite different, and an argument can be made that the manager­ ial task is much more difficult in the public sector than in the private sector. Graham T. Al• lison11 echoes this dilemma in a famous article where he stated that public and private management can be compared and are alike, but are alike only "in all unimportant re-, spects.'' The similarities, according to Allison, exist in the general day,to-day functions of does Introduction 13 j :managers such as planning, budgeting, reporting, and staffing. Bue, while these "micro­ level" similarities might exist, management in the two sectors is different at the "macro­ level." Here, there are striking differences in the time perspective 9f decisions, length of service, measurements of performance, presence and role of the media, legislative and judi­ cial impact, career system, and other factors. Grover Starling also identifies several significant differences between management in the two sectors. 12 Managers in the public sector have different purposes, structures, incen­ tives, and settings, all of which contribute to a more demanding and challenging task. There are other differences between the public and private sectors, including the extent of managerial freedom and discretion enjoyed by managers and level of pay, whichin equiva­ lent situations, usually favor the private sector. While government lacks dlrect exposure to the free market and competition, and thus the natural incentives to improve productivity, there is usually far more public and media scrutiny as well as legal constraints placed on public operations, both of which might present difficulties for government managers. Regardless of their accuracy or legitimacy, the many arguments that the public sector is less effident and effective than the private sector undermine government's ability to fulfill its mission. Such widespread beliefs-founded or unfounded-jeopardize the public's confi­ dence in its government. lt also presents a problem for public administrators in that such a negative environment makes it hard to attract and retain quality employees. So too might public employees suffer from poor image and morale problems owing to the hostility di~ rected at them by the public. It is thus significantly more difficult to manage public pro­ grams and agencies than some equivalent task or program in the private sector. Given the inherent difficulties associated with public administration, government needs highly capa­ ble individuals willing to accept challenges. THE MANAGERIAL PERSPECTIVE ·The task ;f management is complex. The volumes that have been written on management serve as testimony to that fact. University courses, executive training programs, and "how 11 to manage" workshops by self-proclaimed management "gurus still wrestle with the chal­ lenges of managing people, programs, resources, and organizations. Unless one can assem~ ble a team of highly motivated experts and predict all events and obstacles that will occur, it benefits managers {and those who will become managers) to prepare for the challenges of management and hone their abilities, skills, and familiarity with the n ature of managing. This book is dedicated to the latter point and pre~ents the task of public management within several frameworks or environments. 1. All managerial actions occur within, and must consider the existence of, a highly po­ litical environment. Managing public agencies1 programs, and employees is nelther a value-free act nor one removed frotn the realities of the body politic. 2-. Public administrators must consider a wide range of community, legal, and resource consttaints, all part of a complex and dynamic environment within which the man­ agement function occurs. 14 Introduction 3. Being a public administrator brings with it.the charge to function according to high ethical standards. Accepting the public trust means functioning in a way that serves the public interest and is accountable to the public. 4. Perhaps the function that most separates managers from those working in a non-administrative capacity is the task of decision making, the core function of management and a task set before the readers of the cases in this book. The task of decision making is further complicated by attempting it in accordance with the three aforementioned environments of management. The managerial perspective focuses on the "big picture/' or the ability co see the forest in spite of the trees. While a certain proficiency in the details or technical aspects of the matters under consideration is necessary, it is also important to understand the environment within which the task of management takes place. Successful managers know that there is no single "best way" to manage and that there exists no proven formula for successful deci­ sion making. Certainly, the task of management is as much an art as it is a science. Of course, there are helpful rules, models, and approaches for one to follow that are tried and battle tested in the trenches by street-level managers. But, regardless of the lack of attention afforded to it in management training programs and textbooks, many managers believe there is a non-scientific side or approach to management, one that is based more on gut in­ stinct and experience than sc;ientifi.c approaches. A response to either the models and theo­ ries of management or the "school of hard knocks" approach to management js to "practice" the science, and art, of management through the use of case studies and role-playing. Managing in a Highly Political Environment The field of study of public administration has struggled with an identity crisis and a lack of consensus among scholars attempting to identify _the nature of the practice and direction the d iscipline should follow. Early scholars searched for an elusive set of principles of ad­ ministration,and their present-day colleagues ponder self-identity fot the field. One of the problems facing many of the early studies of public administration was that they ignored the political realities of the task of managing public programs and agencies. Indeed, the profession was bofn in the late eighteenth century as an apolitical, ne~tral service and early scholars responded by advocating a politics-administration dicl10tomy, whereby public admin­ istrators were not to be involved in politics ·a nd were free from political pressures. This in­ fluenced subsequent scholarship and ·training, both of which neglected the political environment in. which public administrators work. What is seen as a purely administrative function still involves politics and, even though it is n ow widely accepted that politics is an inescapable part of public administration, the age,old question of the relationship between the two and the resulting dilemmas remain. Managing public programs and agencies is an inherently political endeavor, as the task does not exist in a vacuum. For example, politics is encountered in such eve.ryday acts as making decisions about scarce resources, responding to initiatives and mandates from elected officials, e..xercising discretion, and discerning out of legalistic vagueness the intent of lawmakers and judges. Managers must be sensitive to politics because of the presence of public hostility to government and negative images of public administrators; the influence Introduction 15 of powerful special interests, and the political gaming ofelected officials (especially on sen• sitive issues and during election years). This does not mean that managers mustplace poli­ tics above their responsibility to perform their job, but it is beneficial for managers to consider the political ecology of public administration. The term ecology comes from the Greek word "oikos," which means home or living place. Ecosystems are characterized by the interdependence of living things and achieving balance within a complex organic system. The study of ecology is not restricted to biology, as so~ial sci­ entists borrow from the approaches of their colleagues in the natural sciences. The ecology per­ spective is quite applicable to the study of organizations, especially organizations in the public sector, as the environment within which a public administrator functions is complex and influ­ ences _decisions and outputs. The task of management in government agencies is inextricably linked to many other aspects of the organization and interacts with the larger political system. Rarely are managerial problems independent of other problems. Public administrators must be cogoizant of this environment and learn to function within such a setting. Ethical Considerations: A 11 Right Way" of Managing? Public administration is not value free. Administrators deal on a regular basis with social values, moral dilemmas, and decisions regarding sensitive interpersonal relations. The problem is that there is not always agreement as to what constitutes ethical and unethical behavior. For instance, in judging the actions of employees, managers, and agencies as eth­ ical, a variety of competing value systems come into play, from one's personal sense of morality to public codes of ethics. Even the act of judging the consequences of one's action is an exercise in relativism, as the consequences might be considered from the vantage point of oneself, one's clients, the department or agency, c;,r society in general. Any action could thetefore be judged according to different standards. If one accepts the notion_ that those working in the public sector must be held co a h igher standard, then it is necessary for 'public administrators to not only manage ethically but to foster an ethical climate within their agency. But the question about how to deter­ .mine· what constitutes ethical behavior remains. Here, ethical behavior can be distin­ guished from simply following rules. Agencies have rules and standards of conduct, but codes of ethics transcen~ notions of legalism, whereby a rule is "right" simply because it is a rule. Public administrators are rarely afforded the luxury of a simple and all-encompassing code of ethics to guide behavior. Managing public programs and services where the rubber meets the road, one encounters vagueness in and limits to stated rnles. Often the guidepost for ethical behavior transcends day-to-day rules, as in the case with the higher ideals of democracy such as principles ofopenness and public accountability. Ethical co_nsiderations and dilemmas are built into each case .in this book and the reader faces the challenge of determining the ethical course of action. "The Buck Stops Here": Decision Making Making decisions is perhaps the primary task of managers. Decisio.1,1 making is complicated by the host of forces, complexities, and unknown variables that exist in an already highly political and ever-changing environment. Managers face internal and external forces in 16 Introduction making decisions, including competition for resources from other public agencies and pres, sures from clients and interest groups. Decision makers in the public sector also face a situ­ ation described by Gerald Garvey 13 as having "over-determined problems," whereby there are too many conditions impacting the decision and not too few. The act of decision making implies selecting from various options. Those that study the decision process generally identify five stages in the p-rocess: ( 1) identification of the problem, (2) data collection and analysis, (3) the actual decision, (4) communication and implementation of the decision, and (5) evaluation of the impacts of the decision. The aforementioned approach offers a simple and useful model to keep in mind when reading the cases in this book. Public sector managers will encounter a wide variety of problems. However, in many instances it is still possible to identify some generic types of problems and corresponding "tried and tested1' solutions to these problems. Additionally, as part of the problem identification step, it is helpful to attempt to understand the causes be­ hind the problem so that the action decided upon does not end up addressing the symptom rather than the root cause of the problem. Once the causes of the problem have been iden­ tified, the manager should identify relevandacts and gather data that will inform the decl­ sion process. It must be recognized that there are often limits to the amount of facts and data that can be gathered due to insufficient time, i:esources, and information. Managers also commonly consult with those around them-experts and their en:i.ployees-in gather­ ing and examining the facts surrounding the issue. In making the actual decision, managers employ an. array of approaches and styles, from the highly technical and those relying on statistical methods to off-the-cuff or gut­ level decision making. One of the more common analytic approaches to decision making is cost-benefit analysis, whereby in a time of resource scarcity, it is necessary to weigh the -po­ tential costs against the potential benefits of a particular course of action. Costs and bene­ fits can be measured in many ways. For instance, there are direct and indirect costs (sometimes called "e:xtemalities'') and benefits, as cer.~~in programs might have "spillover" effects unintended by the original course of action. These are hard to anticipate. The cost­ benefit approach.require~ managers to considei; several questions such as: Who should ben­ efit and who actually benefits? What is the value of the benefit? Who should pay for the• costs? Does the value of the benefit outweigh all the possible costs? Costs can b~ computed according to more than simply a monetary measure. This includes such costs as a loss of time, impacts to the natural environment, displacement of individuals, quality of life mea­ sures., and an array of "unforeseen" costs. Decision analysis is another method employed by managers. Rarely is there one possible, course of action available to the decision maker. Consider, for instance, a program labeled A that benefits twenty people, whereas another program labeled B h as a one-third chance of benefitting sixty pe~ple, but it might not work at all and no one will benefit. Which pro­ gram, A or B, should be selected? On the other hand, suppose program B will benefit sixty people, but harm ten, whereas program A will not harm anyone but will only benefit twenty people. What course of action should be pursued? Decision analysis often incorpo" rates probability, logic, and decision trees. A decision tree allows the manager to anticipate the possible consequences of each action and include that in the decision p~ocess by plot­ ting an alternative course of action depending on the outcome of each previous decision. Introduction r 17 Charles E. Lindblom14 , Yale economist and well-known scholar, offers a model with two basic. approaches to making decisions. The first approach is termed the rational~ comprehensive approach. This textbook or 'iroot method" approach considers every single aspect of the matter and assumes the manager understands and pursues clearly-stated goals, has full and accurate information on which to base the decision, identifies and ranks alter­ native options, foresees all the consequences of the course of action, and has the requisite amount of time, resources, and talent in which to make and accomplish the action. The byproduct of this process is, theoretically, that the optimum decision will be selected. Yet, studies have shown that managers do not always follow rational, linear models of decision making. Nor do they always function in an orderly manner, first clarifying their goals, as­ sessing options and consequences of each possible initiative1 and selecting the optimum course of action based on complete and accurate information. So, in practice, this model is usually relegated to textbooks. Lindblom describes a more realistic process he deems incrementalism, a process involv, ing decisions and actions based on "successive limited comparisons." Actions thus amount to small steps or mere incremental departures from the past or existing arrangement. A re­ alistic modei, incrementalism is also a model ofpolitical compromise that accepts the exis­ tence of multiple goals, unforeseen constraints, and numerous complex forces acting in the decision-making environment. O ther burdens like limited time, limited expertise, limited resources, and limited information regarding the nature of the problem further constrain managerial decisions and actions. As such, often the decisions made by public administra, tors are not the best or ideal courses of action. This latter approach is not always prefei:able in that such decisions are rarely compre, hensive or maximizing in nature. Rather, Lindblom sees such courses of action as merely "muddling through." However, the rational-comprehensive model is usually unrealistic, so i.t is equally limited. As such, the administrator is left to seek a balance between the two approaches in what amounts to a bounded rationality, which ·considers some (but not all) options and consequences, attempts to account for unforeseen conditions, yet works within the existing scope of time, resources, and expertise, and tries to move toward the , organiiation's goals through the decision. This latter approach will be used in the role, playing exercises in the book.