David M. Van Slyke, Ph.D. Department of Public Administration 320 Eggers Hall The Maxwell School at Syracuse University 315‐443‐8840 / Fax: 315‐443‐9734 Syracuse, NY 13244 vanslyke@maxwell.syr.edu www.vanslyke.info Office Hours: Tuesday, 1:00‐3:00 and by appointment. Teaching Team Office Hours: Thursday, 1:30‐2:30 Eggers 306B. No appointment required. Public Organizations and Management PAI 712 Class # (11921) Fall 2014 Crouse Hinds Hall, Room 001
Course Description This course focuses on developing management tools and skills for managing people, programs, and resources in organizations with a public service focus (government, nonprofits, and private firms). To that extent, the principal emphasis will be on developing managers and leaders of public and nonprofit organizations and the methods they use to mobilize public resources to achieve important public purposes. The goal for all leaders is to anticipate and manage strategically as opposed to simply reacting to events. It is therefore important to understand the integrative, interdependent nature of organizations, their environments, public policy, rule of law, and stakeholders. Equally important is the manner and variation in which management tools, such as strategic planning and performance management, can be used for managing programs effectively and leading in complex organizations. Managers make decisions in increasingly networked environments that are characterized by uncertainty, resource constraints, barriers to coordination, cooperation, and information exchange as well as the myriad political, policy, regulatory and legal challenges they confront. However, you cannot let these challenges become permanent barriers. Your job, and my goal for this course, is for you to think about these issues and find opportunities to adapt, learn, and innovate in the organizations, divisions, bureaus, and programs you will manage. Therefore, your role as the manager is a central theme of this class. You will be exposed to management theories and frameworks as well as strategies, tools, and heuristics for managing organizations in networked environments that are engaged in the work of government. Theory and research is used to bridge, expand, and deepen a student’s practical ability to manage organizations by evaluating and seizing windows of opportunities and anticipating and managing barriers that can impede the organization’s and your success. Readings, lectures, case studies, discussions, guest presentations, and out‐of‐class assignments are designed to elaborate on and clarify key concepts and bridge theory with practice. Assignments are designed to provide you with an opportunity to think critically about managing organizations in a public service environment, and to give you experience with basic management tools. The outcome of this course is not immediate, but long term and self‐
sustaining. You will learn to think, anticipate, and act as managers. Course Objectives (in alignment with The National Association of Schools of Public Administration and Affairs Core Competencies) 1) To lead and manage in public governance: Students will understand core competencies necessary for helping to shape the organizational environment (broadly defined) in which they operate and for managing individuals, groups, clients, and programs. 2) To analyze, synthesize, think critically, solve problems and make decisions: Students will be aware of managerial tools and strategies and the conditions under which certain practices may be enacted for improving programmatic results and overall organizational effectiveness. 3) To articulate and apply a public service perspective: Students will understand how public, private, and nonprofit organizations are similar and different from one another. Students will know how to diagnose problems and develop feasible solutions through the application of theories and frameworks to “real world” problems. 4) To communicate and interact productively with a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry: Students will learn how to effectively summarize, appraise, and communicate technical and professional information, through both oral and written media. Teaching Fellows: This semester we have the good fortune of three Ph.D. teaching fellows joining our class and assisting in some of the lecture preparation and delivery, case study facilitation, meeting with class participants for questions and further discussion, and participation in and grading of assignments and elevator speeches. The fellows are: Harish Jagannath, 4th year Ph.D. student in PAIA. He can be reached at: harishjagannath@yahoo.com Zachary (Zach) Huitink, 3rd year Ph.D. student in PAIA. He can be reached at: zshuitin@syr.edu Nara Yoon, 1st year PhD student in PAIA. She can be reached at nyoon@syr.edu Course Materials All materials are available on the course’s blackboard site. You do not have to buy anything! 2
Graded Course Assignments Case Study Memo #1 (9/22) 10% Stakeholder Analysis (10/20) 20% Performance Management Plan (11/17) 20% Small Group Case Study Facilitation (As Assigned) 15% Elevator Speech (As Assigned) 15% Case Study Memo #2 (12/8) 15% Participation (Weekly) 5% You are expected to come fully prepared to participate in the lecture, discussions, case analysis, and exercises. Quality participation is always expected of each and every student. Students will be called on randomly to answer questions about the assigned readings and cases during each class. In such cases, your responsibility is to be prepared to integrate and connect important points in the readings to the lecture and their application to practice. The quality of your response and participation will be used to determine your participation grade. ** All written assignments must be submitted by e‐mail to me by the beginning of the class on the day they are due. Email me your assignments using the following protocol (last name and assignment – i.e., Smith memo 1). Students should make every effort to plan ahead. If a student has to miss class because of a medical emergency please notify me via email as soon as you are able. Students are responsible for keeping up with the class requirements and turning assignments in on time. Late assignments will be marked down incrementally one letter grade for each day the assignment is late (i.e., one day late and your assignment goes from an A‐ to a B+). The grading scale is as follows: A = 95‐100 A‐ = 90‐94 B+ = 87‐89 B = 84‐86 B‐ = 80‐83 C+ = 77‐79 C = 74‐76 C‐ = 70‐73 D = 65‐69 F < 64 Each assignment will receive a letter grade and I then use the midpoints for the actual computation of your final grade. Public Management in the News Every week we will discuss examples of public management in the news. While we all get a lot of email, I encourage you to share with us interesting articles that are appropriate. Be prepared to identify and discuss in class issues that are relevant to the work we do as managers, thinking about how we can integrate readings, lectures, and case studies with what we see transpiring out there in the real world. You should consider reading the The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post or any other national and international paper, such as the Christian Science Monitor or the Financial Times. A good weekly source that is international is 3
the Economist. Specialized sources of news, stories, and information about government include Government Executive and Governing. Case Study Discussion Each week that a case study is assigned you should read the case and use the same guidelines provided below in the case study assignment section to prepare for our class discussion of the case material. COURSE ASSIGNMENTS All written assignments are to be written in 12 point Calibri font, single spaced, and with one‐
inch margins. Case Study Memo Assignments You are required to read all the materials and respond to case study assignments (which will be distributed in class the week before the assignment is due) as though you are a manager requested to provide guidance, feedback, and recommendations to the main actor in the case study (unless otherwise noted in the assignment instructions). Your response should be in the format of a 1 page management memo. Your memo should be concise and detailed. You are not to reiterate what is in the case. The examples and recommendation you offer must be specific. It is more important to fully develop your recommendation than to present a bulleted list of 12 options. The leader requesting your memo wants a recommendation that can be implemented. In order to do that, you must develop and justify your recommendation. Part of this justification should include the implications, positive and negative, of pursuing a particular strategy or decision based on the recommendation presented. Our natural inclination is to recommend a safe or previously tested course of action. This is fine, but I want you to be creative and take risks. It is much easier and safer to experiment in this class with risk taking and creativity in your development of recommendations than once on the job. This includes thinking through tradeoffs, the implications of pursuing one option over another, and prioritizing your recommendation against other sub‐optimal choices. Use this class and these assignments to do so. We will incorporate into our grading your level of risk taking as appropriate to the question and situation being addressed. In the end, you want the leader to think you are the individual in the organization to go to for solid advice. This means that in addition to your recommendation, you will also want to signal issues of importance to the leader that are not obvious in the case. The assignments must be turned in by email by the beginning of class. There are resources available on the course blackboard site regarding the writing of effective memos. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or members of the teaching team. Follow these rules when drafting your memos: 4
1. The introductory paragraph of a memo should: A. Answer the question directly. B. Identify the main points conveyed in the body of the memo relevant to the question you’re being asked to provide guidance on. 2. In subsequent paragraphs, A. Avoid buried topic sentences. B. Avoid bundling distinct ideas into one paragraph. 3. In planning the overall structure of a memo, A. Use topic sentences as the road map. B. Ensure parallel structure between the first paragraph and body of text. 4. When editing the memo, A. Avoid run‐on paragraphs. B. Cut unnecessary prose. C. Replace vague words with concrete words. D. Revise awkwardly worded sentences. Stakeholder Analysis By the 3rd week of class, you will identify a public or nonprofit organization and a specific program or initiative within the organization for the course assignments (stakeholder analysis and performance management plan). The stakeholder analysis consists of two components: (1) context and stakeholder analysis motivation; and (2) stakeholder identification and analysis. First, you will describe the context of a selected program or initiative within ‘your chosen’ organization, including brief background about your organization (incorporating statutes or authority, public purpose, and key activities), and a brief description of the program or initiative you have selected for your stakeholder analysis (and subsequent performance management plan). You will also make the case for why a stakeholder analysis is important and potentially beneficial for this particular program or initiative. This section should be no more than one page. The size of the organization will to some extent dictate the focus of your analysis. If you’re looking at a small, local nonprofit organization, the organization as a whole is more likely to be your unit of analysis. If you’re looking at NASA, you will probably want to focus on a program within a division that is an integral part of the larger organization. You should contact the teaching team with any questions you have or if you’re uncertain about your organization selection. Second, you will identify and categorize organizational stakeholders for the program or initiative you have selected (e.g. clients and service recipients, legislators, regulators, competitors). Identification of the stakeholders will likely be relatively straightforward – stakeholders are any organization, individual or group who are either impacted by or impact the organization. The more challenging activity will be to categorize stakeholders based on the degree to which they impact or are impacted by the organization (relative power and interest), and their potential 5
influence over the program or initiative. It is important to assess how particular changes to the program or initiative might be received by each stakeholder, and their likely response. This is where a range of the mapping and stakeholder analysis tools can be very helpful to your assessment and classifications. The total length of your stakeholder analysis assignment should not exceed 5 pages. Your appendix (maps, charts, organizational structures etc.) and reference list (i.e., organizational documents on which your analysis is based) will not count towards the 5 page limit for this assignment. A good example of the stakeholder analysis assignment is available on the course’s blackboard site. Performance Management Plan Building from your stakeholder analysis, you will design a performance management plan for the specific program or initiative within your organization. The performance management plan consists of two components: (1) a clearly developed logic model and specific performance measures, and (2) an implementation plan for collecting, monitoring, and disseminating performance information to key stakeholders. First, you will develop a logic model for your selected program or initiative, including a formal diagram and a summary of each component. The logic model summary should clearly categorize specific measures for inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes, including the type of indicator and specific data to be used to derive the indicator. A compelling case for the indicators collected should be provided, including an assessment of the strengths and limitations of the specific indicators. This section should not exceed 3 pages (including the model diagram). Second, you will design an implementation plan to collect, monitor and disseminate the performance data collected. Technology that can be used to collect performance data should be described. The uses of the performance data for both internal monitoring and management, as well as external reporting, should be described. In discussing external reporting, it is important to link specific performance measures to key stakeholders, with a discussion of how the information will be shared with the key stakeholders. Third, your logic model should be clear about the connections between the measures and stakeholders and the organization’s mission, its goals and strategies, and accountability systems. The total length of your performance management plan should not exceed 5 pages. A final appendix (i.e., logic model diagram) and reference list will not count towards the 5 page limit for this assignment. A good example of the performance management plan assignment is available on the course’s blackboard site. 6
In‐Class Small Group Case Study Facilitation & Discussion The goal of using cases is to stimulate students to be bold and analytic, to encourage classroom participation, and to leave you thinking about the variables of the case and the principles behind whatever actions you might take. It is important to remember that there are no right answers, but there are responses and strategies that are likely to be more effective than others. A criticism often leveled at public affairs/policy programs is that graduates develop strong analytical skills but often to the exclusion of the ability to communicate complex information quickly and effectively. This skill is all the more necessary as you will be called on by important and busy leaders and decision makers to assist them on a wide range of issues. Depending on the issue, whether it is an organizational, programmatic, or individual issue, they will want relevant information that includes context, analysis, and recommendations. They do not have the time or desire to read a 10 page white paper. Rather, you or a group of colleagues working on a project may be asked to brief your supervisor and colleagues on a particular issue. In this class, we will seek to replicate both problem diagnosis and problem solving through the use of case discussions, activities, and simulations. Each week that a case study or an exercise is assigned for in‐class discussion we will think about the context, the actors and institutional players, and the issues/problems/challenges and opportunities. There are several goals for every group’s facilitation of a case study for discussion. The first is to briefly review the facts of the case in a very succinct manner (if a case is assigned. In some cases a group has been asked to develop an exercise). The second is to discuss the case and/or exercise. This can range from a large group discussion of the case around several challenging questions, to the development and implementation of an activity in which class members are organized into different groups with similar and conflicting interests and then report back to the larger group, to small group role plays based on an assigned job/responsibility. The third is to integrate the readings and lecture to the discussion – in effect furthering the learning objectives of the particular class session. The group of students assigned to lead the case will be responsible for facilitating the discussion or developing an activity to reinforce key points from the day’s readings, lecture, and assigned case. Student groups are encouraged to make an appointment to meet with the professor or teaching team at least a week in advance of the class to share their ideas. Students will have an opportunity to evaluate each group member’s performance in their case development and facilitation responsibilities. This evaluation will be used toward the assignment grade and the individual student’s participation grade. Elevator Speech Similar to the case study learning objectives, you will be called upon by your supervisor/leader to brief them on a particular topic. Often, such a request may occur spontaneously between you and the supervisor while in the elevator, when you’re walking past their office returning from a prior meeting, or when they request that you walk with them to committee hearings or to a meeting at another agency. The briefing they want is a succinct presentation of material on 7
a particular subject. This is your opportunity to shine. Reveal your intellectual, analytical, managerial, and communication strengths. Make the leader look informed and knowledgeable on the topic. Help the leader make the very best decision and/or recommendation possible. In this informal and spontaneous simulation you will brief me (your supervisor) and an assigned student (my deputy) on a specific topic. The topic may be a contemporary organizational opportunity/challenge (agency funding), policy issue (lack of legislative support or ambiguous implementation guidelines), or individual situation (difficult personnel, rumors, theft, corruption).1 You could decide to do your elevator speech on an issue you are focusing on in your SWOT analysis and performance management plan. The topic however should be one that you feel comfortable speaking about and which is appropriately complex and challenging.2 Remember, as managers your job is to implement policies and programs and manage organizations, personnel, contractors, and resources. You will have exactly 3 minutes to provide the briefing3. At the start, explain the context – that is, what role you are playing, what organization you will be referring to, and who your supervisor is (the role that I will play). This context setting will not count against your time, but you should be succinct. 4 State your action recommendation immediately so that your supervisor understands what the briefing is about. In your briefing presentation, do not rush. Do not cram material into the available time. Think about what matters most. Don’t forget to offer your action recommendation and the implications, positive and negative, of pursuing your recommendation. Signal issues as you think relevant and important. To conceptualize this graded exercise, imagine that you are a division leader at an organization (public/government, nonprofit/NGO, private firm/consultancy) and that you are asked by the agency secretary or some equivalent (ME/professor) and their deputy secretary or some equivalent (assigned student)5 to brief us on your latest project, some development, or a new idea. The student asking the questions will also be graded on their ability to ask insightful questions that are challenging and relevant. Such questions will focus on defending the interests of the principal and therefore push, prod, and probe to clear up any ambiguities. The student questioner should not be given advanced knowledge of the topic on which she/he and I 1
One possibility is to choose a report to brief your boss on. Some examples can be located at the following site: http://www.businessofgovernment.org/reports 2
While you will often be asked to speak on topics for which you have varying levels of comfort/knowledge, in this exercise please choose a topic you are familiar with and comfortable speaking about. 3
This is actually about 3X longer than you are likely to get in your work environment, but from a teaching and learning perspective this will hopefully be helpful. 4
Practically speaking, your supervisor would know what the briefing is about. But, given that you’re presenting to me and my deputy, providing this brief overview is helpful to your audience. 5
A different student assigned by the instructor for each presentation will ask you questions so you also need to be clear and succinct in your follow‐up responses (imagine that this person is my deputy). 8
are being briefed.6 The ability to communicate complex material in an effective manner and in a very short span of time is critical to your success as a manager and leader. A significant part of this challenge is in framing and communicating the issue and then recommending a course of action for consideration. In making your “pitch” you should expect the unexpected, such as possibly being knocked off your stride, interrupted, and challenged. While there is some formality to the presentation format, there will be interaction within this brief exchange. Remember that context matters. You would not run up to a senior United States Senator and say ‘you need to do this or that…” You’re a professional, present as such. Each presenter will be graded on the quality of their elevator speech. This includes the ability to master a complex set of facts and communicate them clearly and succinctly; make a clear recommendation and underline the positive and negative implications associated with adopting that recommendation; and signal other issues which the leader should figure into their decision making calculus. In addition, two additional grading criteria include the “rigor of questions asked to the presenter by the student questioner” and the “quality of response to these questions by the presenter.” No notes or audio‐visual aids should be used. I will provide in advance my grading rubric for the elevator speech. ALL of the elevator speeches will take place during my office hours or another mutually agreed upon time. Disability Statement If you believe that you need accommodations for a disability, please contact the Office of Disability Services (ODS), http://disabilityservices.syr.edu, located in Room 309 of 804 University Avenue, or call (315) 443‐4498 for an appointment to discuss your needs and the process for requesting accommodations. ODS is responsible for coordinating disability‐related accommodations and will issue students with documented disabilities Accommodation Authorization Letters, as appropriate. Since accommodations may require early planning and generally are not provided retroactively, please contact ODS as soon as possible. Syracuse University and I are committed to your success and to supporting Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This means that in general no individual who is otherwise qualified shall be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity, solely by reason of having a disability. You are also welcome to contact me privately to discuss your academic needs. Although I cannot arrange for disability‐related accommodations myself, I will help you work with the Office of Disability Services at Syracuse University to support your needs. Please contact the ODS by email in advance: odssched@syr.edu 6
The presenter should not avail the questioner (deputy) with prior information about the presentation. 9
Plagiarism Plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty will result in a grade of “F” for the course. I expect students to abide by the academic rules and regulations established by Syracuse University. These require students to "exhibit honesty in all academic endeavors. Cheating in any form is not tolerated, nor is assisting another person to cheat. The submission of any work by a student is taken as a guarantee that the thoughts and expressions in it are the student's own except when properly credited to another. Violations of this principle include giving or receiving aid in an exam or where otherwise prohibited, fraud, plagiarism, or any other deceptive act in connection with academic work. Plagiarism is the representation of another's words, ideas, programs, formulae, opinions, or other products of work as one's own, either overtly or by failing to attribute them to their true source" (Syracuse University Bulletin 2003‐
2004: p. 2). I take plagiarism extremely seriously. It is your responsibility as a student to understand what plagiarism is and how to correctly reference documents and attribute other peoples’ arguments that you are citing. If you have any questions about what constitutes plagiarism please consult the instructor or the graduate student handbook. See page 62 of the Handbook found at http://maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/paia/degrees/MPA%20Handbook%202014‐15.pdf See also any of the standard references on writing, such as The Elements of Style. Consultation and Assistance I am available to help you achieve the learning objectives for this course. If you are in need of any assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. Please do not wait until the last moment. When you need assistance or wish to discuss some element of the course or materials, please contact me. Course Philosophy and Policies Please treat your colleagues and the instructor with respect, sensitivity, and openness to new and different ideas. All of us are different from one another. Use these differences as a learning opportunity. Be tolerant of differences in opinion and preferences. No absence is permitted without proper consultation with the instructor except for a medical or family emergency. Distractive practices, such as tardy entrances, leaving the room while class is in session, ringing cell phones, cell phone conversations, excessive conversation with other students, surfing the internet or completing other coursework on your laptop, and conducting activities unrelated to class discussions will be taken into account in your participation grade. If Facebook or some other social media application is so important to you that you think you’ll need to check it during our class, then please leave and enroll in another section. We will take a 10 minute break at the 90 minute point during the class. 10
Office hours are noted on the front of the syllabus for meeting with the professor and/or the teaching team. If you need to stop by during office hours with questions about the course material please feel free to do so. Appointments may also be made if you are unable to meet during regularly scheduled office hours. Please contact me or the teaching team to schedule a time. Semester Schedule August 25 Public, Private, and Nonprofit – What’s the same? What’s Different? Shalala, D.E. (1998). “Are Large Public Organizations Manageable?” Public Administration Review, 58(4): 284‐289. Lynn, L.E. (2005). “Public Management: A Concise History of the Field.” Chapter 2, In Ferlie, E., Lynn, L., and Pollitt, C. 2005, The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. (OPTIONAL) Hood, C. “Public Management: The Word, the Movement, the Science.” Chapter 1, Ferlie et., al. September 1 No Class – Labor Day Holiday September 8 Stakeholders and the Environment of Public Management Mintzberg, H. (1996). “Managing Government, Governing Management.” Harvard Business Review, May, 75‐83. Porter, M.E. (2008). “The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy.” Harvard Business Review, January, 78‐93. Ridley, M. (2014). “The Scarcity Fallacy.” The Wall Street Journal, April 26‐27, C1. (SKIM) Conklin, J. (2010). Wicked Problems & Social Complexity. (SKIM) Los Angeles 2020 Commission (2013). A Time for Truth. December. (OPTIONAL) Baron, R. F. (2006). “Opportunity Recognition as Pattern Recognition: How Entrepreneurs ‘Connect the Dots’ to Identify New Business Opportunities.” Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1): 104‐119. 11
Breul, J. (2008). Getting it Done Advice for Government Executives. (Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government). Case Study: Rodriguez, D. (2008). “Elusive Community in South Park – Part A.” Collaborative Governance Initiative, Program on the Advancement of Research on Conflict and Collaboration. *Questions for consideration: What are the advantages and disadvantages of reaching out directly to the residents of South Park from the Mayor’s office? What kinds of “communities” are there in this case? If you live in South Park, what are some different things you might want the City to do at the end of the “A” case? Which groups were given greater and lesser preference in terms of engagement? Who was left off the stakeholder map all together? *Questions for consideration are examples and do not represent the full range of questions that can and should be considered. September 15 Organizational Structure, Networks, and Supply Chains Kettl, D.F. (2003). “Contingent Coordination: Practical and Theoretical Puzzles for Homeland Security.” American Review of Public Administration, 33(3): 253‐277. Cross, R., R.J. Thomas, and D. Light (Forthcoming). “Creating the Right Decision‐Making Networks: Driving Decision Efficiency and Effectiveness through Networks.” Sloan Management Review. Ansell, C. and Keller, A. (2014). Adapting the Incident Command Model for Knowledge‐Based Crises: The Case of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. IBM Center for the Business of Government. http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/Adapting%20the%20Incident%20Co
mmand%20Model%20for%20Knowledge‐Based%20Crises.pdf Fedorowicz, J. and S. Sawyer (2012). Designing Collaborative Networks: Lessons Learned from Public Safety. IBM Center for the Business of Government. http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/Designing%20Collaborative%20Netw
orks.pdf (SKIM) Abonyi, G. and Van Slyke, D.M. (2010). “Governing on the Edges: Globalization of Production and the Challenge to Public Administration in the 21st Century.” Public Administration Review, 70 (Supplement 1):s33‐s45. 12
(OPTIONAL) Capozzi, M.M., Kellen, A., and Somers, R. (2012). “Making Innovation Structures Work.” McKinsey & Company, 1‐8. Handfield, R. (2010). The Role of the Federal Supply Chain in Preparing for National Emergencies. IBM Center for the Business of Government. Gladwell, M. (2000). “Designs for Working.” The New Yorker, December 1: 60‐70. Case Study Discussion (LED BY STUDENT GROUP 1): Collaboration Amid Crisis: The Department of Defense During Hurricane Katrina. What does the case tell us about the potential for collaboration in crisis situations? How do organizations use rules to limit collaboration? What is the logic of coordination that drove collaboration? September 22 Organizational Culture Case Study Memo Assignment #1 DUE: A Heritage Worth Saving? The Case of the Acheen Street Malay Mosque Village. Assignment question will be distributed September 15th. O’Leary, R. (2006). The Ethics of Dissent: Managing Guerrilla Government. CQ Press. Chapters 1 and 5. You may wish to purchase this book, however the chapters assigned are available on the course blackboard site. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933116609/sr=8‐
1/qid=1156283038/ref=pd_bbs_1/102‐7436953‐5454553?ie=UTF8 Akerlof, G.A., and Kranton, R.E. (2005). “Identity and the Economics of Organizations.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1): 9‐32. Goodsell, C.T. (1989). “Administration as Ritual.” Public Administration Review (March/April), 161‐166. (OPTIONAL) Brown, G., Lawrence, T.B., and Robinson, S.L. (2005). “Territoriality in Organizations.” Academy of Management Review, 30(3): 577‐594. Case Study Discussion (LED BY STUDENT GROUP 2): Brock, J. (1996). “Improving Decision Making and Patron Service in the King County Library System – Part A and B.” Electronic Hallway, University of Washington’s Evans School of Public Affairs. In this case, think about culture – the culture of the King County Library System and the different stakeholders with an interest in the Library system and the decisions that will need to be made from an internal and external perspective. 13
September 29 Motivating People Take the quiz at this site: Are you a giver or a taker? http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/take‐our‐quiz‐are‐you‐giver‐or‐taker Kerr, S. (1995). “On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B.” Academy of Management Executive, 9(1): 7‐14. Grant, A. (2013). “Givers take all: The hidden dimension of corporate culture.” McKinsey Quarterly, April. Magee, J.C., and C.W. Frasier (2014). “Status and Power: The principal inputs to influence for public managers. Public Administration Review, 74(3): 307‐317. Thomas, D.A., and R.J. Ely (1996). “Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity.” Harvard Business Review, Sept/Oct, 79‐90. Fiske, S.T., Harris, L.T., Cuddy, A.J.C. (2004). “Why Ordinary People Torture Enemy Prisoners.” Science, 306 (November 26): 1482‐1483. Ibarra, H. (2014). “How Companies Are Putting Managers in a Bind: Businesses Are Giving Bosses New Responsibilities but Not Training Them for Those Roles.” The Wall Street Journal, April 27, R5. Wallace, J.B. (2014). “Put That Resentment To Good Use.” The Wall Street Journal, April 26‐27, C3. Wang, S. (2014). “The Science of Standing Out.” The Wall Street Journal, March 18, D1. (OPTIONAL) Deloitte (2014). “The Craft of Incentive Prize Design.” Deloitte University Press. Perry, J.L., Hondeghem, A., and Wise, L.R. (2010). “Revisiting the Motivational Bases of Public Service: Twenty Years of Research and an Agenda for the Future.” Public Administration Review 70(5): 681‐690. Gladwell, M. (2004). “Personality Plus.” The New Yorker, September 20: 42‐48. Case Study Discussion (LED BY STUDENT GROUP 3): “Karen Hannen and Robert Welch: Change at the Division of Economic Analysis.” Electronic Hallway, University of Washington’s Evans School of Public Affairs. Questions for consideration: What makes situations like this so difficult to deal with? What are Hannen’s responsibilities in this situation? What aspects of the situation can help her and what 14
can get in the way of dealing with the situation in a way that advances her responsibilities? How might she make use of some of the formal and informal tools to ease the emotions and subjectivity of the situation, and focus on the responsibilities you identified early in the discussion? October 6 Strategic Planning Bryson, J.M. (2004). Chapter Two: “The Strategy Change Cycle: An Effective Strategic Planning Approach for Public and Nonprofit Organizations.” Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Jossey‐Bass Publishers, San Francisco: CA. Boyne, G.A., and Walker, R.M. (2010). “Strategic Management and Public Service Performance: The Way Ahead.” Public Administration Review, December‐Special Issue, S185‐192. Brown, T.L. (2010). “The Evolution of Public Sector Strategy.” Public Administration Review, December‐Special Issue, S212‐S214. (OPTIONAL) Garvin, D.A., and Roberto, M.A. (2001). “What You Don’t Know About Making Decisions.” Harvard Business Review, September, 108‐116. Mendonca, L.T., and Miller, M. (2007). “Crafting a Message that Sticks: An Interview with Chip Heath.” McKinsey Quarterly, November, 1‐7. Discussion: Choose one of the following: a) Greenblatt, A. (2012). “The New Black South: After Nearly a Century of Moving North, African‐Americans are Moving Back to the South and Into the Suburbs.” Governing, June, 24‐30. b) Holeywell, R. (2012). “Welcome to Walmart: Big Cities Learn to Love the Big Box.” Governing, June, 46‐50. Be prepared to talk about these two very different perspectives on local government strategic planning and the corresponding visions, goals, and strategies that are developed and implemented to achieve the mission of these respective local communities. 15
October 13 Strategy Content Litchfield, R.C. (2008). “Brainstorming Reconsidered: A Goal‐Based View.” Academy of Management Review, 33(3): 649‐668. Roxburgh, C. (2003). “Hidden Flaws in Strategy.” McKinsey Quarterly, 2: 11 pages. Vining, A.R. (2011). “Public Agency External Analysis Using a Modified “Five Forces” Framework.” International Public Management Journal, 14(1):63‐105. Meier, K.J., L.J. O’Toole Jr., G.A. Boyne, R.M. Walker (2007). “Strategic Management and the Performance of Public Organizations: Testing Venerable Ideas against Recent Theories.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2):357‐377. Case Study Discussion (LED BY STUDENT GROUP 4): “The Meredith Center.” The Crimson Group, Cambridge, MA and the Electronic Hallway, University of Washington’s Evans School of Public Affairs. Questions for consideration: What does the Meredith Center have going for it? What are its strengths? What is working well? Looking at the main programs and services offered, what are the strengths and weaknesses of each? With these factors in mind, what are the key factors that allow them to stay in business? And where are the biggest risks—and opportunities? With this assessment done, what recommendations would you make for Jim King to provide effective services and maintain long term viability and success? October 20 Performance Measurement Stakeholder Analysis Assignment DUE TODAY! Poister, T.H. (2003). Measuring Performance in Government and Nonprofit Organizations – Chapters 1‐3. Jossey‐Bass: San Francisco, CA. Behn, R.D. (2003). “Why Measure Performance: Different Purposes Require Different Measures.” Public Administration Review, 63(5): 586‐606. Heinrich, C. J. (2012). “How Credible Is the Evidence, and Does It Matter? An Analysis of the Program Assessment Rating Tool.” Public Administration Review, 72(1): 123–134. Guest Speaker: Mr. Matthew Bachand, MPA’07, Director of Growth Strategy at Mass Insight Education). Case Study: Michelle Rhee and the D.C. Public Schools. Read the following: Risen, C. (2008). “The Lightning Rod.” The Atlantic, November. 16
Turque, B., and Cohen, J. (2010). “D.C. Schools Chancellor Rhee's approval rating in deep slide.” The Washington Post, February 1. In this combination of case study articles, power, politics, stakeholders, incentives, preferences, structures, leadership, and accountability systems come into conflict. Be prepared to analytically disentangle the substance from the noise. October 27 Performance Management Moynihan, D.P. and Pandey, S.K. (2010). “The Big Question for Performance Management: Why do Managers Use Performance Information?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4): 849‐866. Heinrich, C.H. (2010). “Incentives and Their Dynamics in Public Sector Performance Management Systems.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(1): 183‐208. Hood, C. (2006). “Gaming in Targetworld: The Targets Approach to Managing British Public Services.” Public Administration Review, 66(4): 515‐521. Hatry, H., and Davies, E. (2011). A Guide to Using Data‐Driven Performance Reviews. IBM Center for the Business of Government. http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/A%20Guide%20to%20Data‐
Driven%20Performance%20Reviews.pdf (OPTIONAL) Moynihan, D. (2013). The New Federal Performance System: Implementing the GPRA Modernization Act. IBM Center for the Business of Government, Washington, DC. Fryer, R.G. (2010). “Financial Incentives and Student Achievement: Evidence from Randomized Trials.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 15898. McKenzie, D. (2009). “Impact Assessments in Finance and Private Sector Development: What Have We Learned and What Should We Learn?” The World Bank Research Observer, 25(2): 209‐
233. Case Study Discussion (Led by Harish Jagannath): SomerStat: Implementing a Performance Management System Are statistically driven performance management systems a fad or a public management reform here to stay? Be prepared to talk not only about the technical aspects of such systems, but more importantly about how such systems engage stakeholders, and position organizations, their structures, cultures, and employees, to reach milestones. 17
October 30 Thursday Joint Session with Mr. J. Christopher Mihm, GAO The Implications of a Governance Perspective Location – Public Events Room Time: 11:00am – 1:45pm Guest Speaker is Mr. Christopher Mihm, Managing Director of the Strategic Issues Team at the Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C. This class will meet in a joint session with Professor Mergel and Professor Lecy’s sections in the Public Events Room (PER, Eggers 220) from 11:00am‐1:40pm. Participation is mandatory. Please plan your schedule accordingly. Required Readings: GAO, “2014 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits,” GAO‐14‐343SP, April 8. GAO, “Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance Collaboration in Interagency Groups,” GAO‐14‐220, February 2014. Cross, R. and P. Gray (2013). “Where has the Time Gone? Addressing Collaboration Overload in a Networked Economy.” California Management Review, 56(1): 1‐17. The Partnership for Public Service and Booz Allen Hamilton, “Building the Enterprise: Nine Strategies for a More Integrated, Effective Government”, August, 2013. November 3 Strategic Management Systems – The Balanced Scorecard Kaplan, R.S., and Norton, D.P. (1996). “Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System.” Harvard Business Review, (January/February), 75‐85. Kaplan, R.S., and Norton, D.P. (2005). “The Balanced Scorecard: Measures That Drive Performance.” Harvard Business Review, July/August, 172‐180. Kaplan, R.S., and Norton, D.P. (2008). “Mastering the Management System.” Harvard Business Review, January, 63‐77. Poister, T., Pitts, D., and Edwards, L. (2010). “Strategic Management Research in the Public Sector: A Review, Synthesis, and Future Direction.” The American Review of Public Administration, 40(5): 522‐545. Behn, R.D. (2006). “The Varieties of CitiStat.” Public Administration Review, 66(3): 332‐340. 18
(OPTIONAL) Behn, R.D. (2007). What All Mayors Would Like to Know about Baltimore’s CitiStat Performance Strategy. IBM Center for the Business of Government, Washington, DC. Bryson, J., Berry, F., and Yang, K. (2010). “The State of Public Management Research: A Selective Literature Review and Set of Future Directions.” The American Review of Public Administration, 40(5): 495‐521. Rohm, H. (2002). “Developing and Using the Balanced Scorecard Performance Systems.” The Balanced Scorecard Institute. Case Study Discussion (LED BY STUDENT GROUP 5): Nicholas, M., and Thompson, K. (2006) Using the Balanced Scorecard: Lessons Learned from the U.S. Postal Service and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, IBM Center for The Business of Government, Washington, DC. http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/Scorecard.pdf In this discussion, be prepared to discuss why the strengths and limitations of the BSC, why implementation is difficult, and what resources (broadly defined) are needed to effectively utilize such systems in a manner that is effective and sustainable. November 10 Strategic Management Case Study Simulation Case Study Simulation (LED BY STUDENT GROUP 6): D’Agnes, H. and Gugerty, M.K. (2006). “A Partnership in Troubled Waters, Part A.” Electronic Hallway, University of Washington’s Evans School of Public Affairs. Roles and questions will be assigned to each member on November 3. November 17 Managing Organizational Change, Innovation & Strategic Alliances Performance Management Plan Assignment is DUE TODAY! Donahue, A.K., and R. O’Leary (2012). “Do Shocks Change Organizations? The Case of NASA.” Journal of Public Administration, Research, and Theory, 22(3): 395‐425. Lohr, S. (2008). “In Modeling Risk, the Human Factor was Left Out.” The New York Times, November 4. Kotter, J.P. (2007). “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail.” Harvard Business Review, January, 96‐103. Garvin, D.A., and Roberto, M.A. (2005). “Change through Persuasion.” Harvard Business Review, February, 104‐112. 19
Lowery, A. (2011). “Programs that Tie Funds to Effectiveness Are at Risk.” The New York Times, December 2. Lee‐Archer, B. (2012). Right Servicing: A New Business Approach for Enabling a Differential Response in Social Program Management. Curam Research Institute. (Read 37‐45 and SKIM the remainder of this report). (OPTIONAL) Barsh, J., Capozzi, M.M., and Davidson, J. (2008). “Leadership and Innovation.” McKinsey Quarterly, January, 37‐47. Denhardt, R., and Denhardt, J. (2001). Creating a Culture of Innovation: 10 Lessons from America’s Best Run City. IBM Center for the Business of Government. Guest Speaker: Dr. Michael Crow, PhD’85, President, Arizona State University. November 24 NO CLASS – THANKSGIVING BREAK December 1 Public Management Reforms and the Changing Landscape Kettl, D.F. (1997). "The Global Revolution in Public Management: Driving Themes, Missing Links." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16(3): 446‐462. Cheung, A.B.L. (2005). "The Politics of Administrative Reforms in Asia: Paradigms and Legacies, Paths and Diversities." Governance, 18(2): 257‐282. Light, P. (2008). A Government Ill‐Executed: The Decline of the Federal Service and How to Reverse It. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chapter 7, "Steadiness in Administration," pgs. 163‐189. Bouvard, F., Dohrmann, T., & Lovegrove, N. (2009). "The Case for Government Reform Now." McKinsey Quarterly, June 2009. Chenok, D., Kamensky, J.M., Keegan, M.J., Ben‐Yehuda, G. (2013). Six Trends Driving Change in Government. Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for the Business of Government. Case Study Discussion (Led by Zach Huitink). Case Study Assignment #2 Distributed. Case study memo Due December 8th. You may submit your memo as soon as you want but it is due no later than December 8th by 9:30am EST. 20
The syllabus is a template of what will be covered this semester and is subject to change at the discretion of the instructor. Every attempt will be made to notify students of changes in a timely manner. 21