Public Management of the 21st Century
Effective Administrative Management
Research Conference in Public Management, June 2015
The Canadian Association for Programs in Public Administration
Submitted to:
Dr. Ian Roberge
Glendon Campus
York University
2275 Bayview Avenue
Toronto, ON
M4N 3M6
By
Caroline Covell
Walden University
Public Policy and Administration
Specialization: Public Leadership and Management
c/o 66 Bay Rd. Lombardy, ON K0G 1L0
 613.283.1852
 carol59@xplornet.com or covellcaroline@gmail.com
Abstract
Many have tried to restructure public administration using different modern
management theories, with the promise that they bring change and it will bring
efficiency to the government. Unfortunately, the promise only sounds good in
paper. However, the promise of change that brings efficiency in the public
administration is an outward inside, and it is always a failure effort because it
does not have any theoretical foundation, but simply a collection of ideas. As this
collection of ideas is applied in the public administration, it destroys good
management practices. For decades, the government has been functioned without
proper management system because the new public management emphasizes on
self-management and operational management without leadership roles and
eventually, it becomes dysfunction. Despite the dysfunctionality, still, many tries
to reform the system according to different perceptions or ideas adopted from the
views of external observant, rather than, what Towne said, the perception of a
public administrator. Management matters. As a public administrator, I will
discuss the theoretical foundation of the public administration and applies this
theory into the management of its administrative process for the 21st century
public management.
Introduction
Many people like to become public leaders because they view public leadership from the political
lenses – the fund raisings and gala events, marketing, political debates, the travel and the accolade, the
campaign and the election, then the celebration – all are grand. They want to become leaders as soon as
after the election. All politicians want to hold the cabinet ministry position because it gives them the most
satisfaction (Docherty, 1990) to their ego.
Others come to the government as political appointees. Under the New Public Management,
which is the corporate system of management and philosophy, the elected officials and appointed officials
are considered as the leaders, ones who can tell others what to do (McShane, 1992) and to act as agents on
behalf of clients, as well as political masters to the political staffs.
The political appointees are called “managers,” as suggested by Osborne and Gaebler (1992),
people who manage the departments and agencies and act as the principals on behalf of the public.
Both the elected and appointed officials come directly from the outside, are never given any
training, or never go through a development process. Consequently, they carry with them their own
personal interests or the interests of particular groups (Dube, 1963) that have tie to them politically.
One inside the government, they restructure and restructure to make the organization they lead to
become more like the one they are familiar with, which is their own firms or the firms they work for.
They make it small with the environment they are accustomed to.
While restructuring gives them a grand entrance to the newly elected and appointed leaders, it
gives the leaders an opportunity to bring their own “birds of the same feathers” so they can fly together.
Most leaders still “lack of any” or that they lack credentials, poor technical capacity, and
incompetent, or Rotberg (2006) and Chairman Mao called them “knowledge illiterate.” In order to lead or
manage the bureaucratic organizations, one must go through a development process (Mintzberg, 1999)
because public sector and private sector are different in every aspect (Reed & Swain, 1991). Despite some
scholars try to equalize or generalize them, they will never be the same (Kessler & Alexander, 2004). In
fact, it is risky (Kramer, 1998) and dangerous to try to equalize them (Graham, 2007).
In their efforts of restructuring and constant restructuring with each changing leaders, the
bureaucratic organizations become unstable, very fragile, and eventually, they become dysfunction. Akin
(2012) stated, the system is so broken – the structure, management and administration – that no one can
seem to be able to fix it.
In order to fix this dysfunctionality, businesses, accountants, social workers and administrative
clerks are hired as consultants to design the organizational structure and its management system to mimic
a corporation. Towne (in Shafritz, Ott & Jang, 2005) suggested that if there is a dysfunctionality in an
organization, never ask a business, an accountant, a social worker, or an administrative clerk to fix it, but
ask a person who is especially trained in that particular field.
Constant restructuring of the bureaucratic organizations has resulted in a hollow and broken
system. Rather than hiring a person who is specialized in this field, the government hires consultant with
the above background to design the vision, mission, objectives, and the organizational structure of each
bureaucratic organization.
Unfortunately, they bring is an outside inward approach, a “garbage can solution,” and this effort
is always fail because they do not have the foundation.
The new design organization has turned the bureaucracy from a professional organization to be an
amateur organization with leaders who act as performing actors, who measure their ability to lead based
on their popularity, and are not doers of the tasks. These leaders are also plutocrats, who think nothing but
their own particular trade (Smith, 1993), while the system is managed based on self-management. They
employ personnel who represent a labor machine. They deny knowledge. This system brings dishonesty,
divisiveness, disunity among the people and the bureaucratic organizations, and engineers selfdestruction.
Though they promise that the separation of leadership will make the government effective, on the
contrary, the result is weak governance, severe poor capacity government, a very dysfunctional system of
management, and a broken administrative system.
2
This paper discusses the theoretical foundation of the bureaucracy and applies it into and
organizational system of management of public administration of the 21st century. The first step to repair
the broken system is the administrative system because it is the heart of the organization activities.
Theory of the Constitution
Thomas Paine once stated that the “government without the Constitution is power without a
right” (Fernandes, Weissinger, & Purcell, 2003).
One-way to looking at the problem in the government today is by understanding the foundation of
the institution, which is the Constitution. Alternatively, in order to become a public leader, one must go
through a development process by first, knowing and understand the foundation of the institution, which
is the Constitution. Then using the knowledge and education he has, he applies the meaning of the
Constitution in the task. This process enhances professionalism, removes racial, social, economic and
systemic discrimination, and social exclusion. It leads the person not to think about himself or his inner
cycle (Blank, 2001), but the public. The combination of knowledge, education, and professional
experience are very important for people working in the government, especially those who occupy
leadership positions. According to Wellisch (1998/2000), using knowledge and education in the task or
economic planning of the state affairs leads to democratic government. Hence, leadership position in the
government requires people with higher learning degree.
The Constitution defines, legalizes, and characterizes the structure, it is the foundation of the
bureaucracy (Helmke & Levitsky, 2004), and through the Constitution, one understands the true functions
of government, its organization and leadership and management (Meier & O’Toole, 1997).
The Constitution characterizes the type and form of government, highlights the roles and
functions of the government, and the division of authority and responsibility of the federal, provincial,
and municipal governments. It also defines and legalizes the mission and objectives of the government, as
well as the nature of power and authority of the government, which very few public leaders and public
servants know (Congleton, 2004). The Constitution gives vision of the society based on equity, justice,
and freedom; it grants social justice and equality to all members of society, guarantees equal access to
public goods and services, and non-racism and non-sexism through the rule of the law and the regulation
(Asmal & James, 2001).
The Constitution affects the bureaucratic practices, defines that power is spread among the
different levels of governments and along the different institutions horizontally and vertically (Riggs,
1994). In order to spread the power horizontally and vertically, it requires a hierarchical system of
leadership, authority, and knowledge.
Graham and Marques (2000) gave several principal functions of the Constitution, which every
individual who works in the bureaucracy or the government must know. Among other, it:
• legitimizes the authority of the state, defines the state, and justifies the political authority of the
government and the sovereignty.
• recognizes the rights and freedoms of the citizens. On one hand, the Constitution limits the
actions of the government officials; on the other hand, it defines government obligations to
provide services and resources to the citizens. For example, it protects a group in a peaceful
assembly from interfering in their activities by another group by providing it with police
protection.
• delineates the roles and the limits of the authority of different political actors. The Constitution
describes the separation of power between the different levels of government, between the
different organizations within the bureaucratic circle, and the responsibility of each organization
as well as that of the individual.
• establishes the mechanism for adjudication. Different from the current political belief that
political parties are the links between the state and the citizens (Makarenko, 2010), the
Constitution governs the relationship between government authorities, between the state and the
citizens, and through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it provides a mechanism how the court
3
•
or the Supreme Court makes a decision that affects the citizens.
expresses the basic beliefs and symbolism. Constitution expresses the norms, values, and beliefs
of the state and nation and a symbol of nationalism.
The Constitution gives aspiration, moral and ethical direction for the future of the people and the
states (Asmal & James, 2001). Furthermore, according to Asmal and James, the Constitution requires the
government administration and management to be processed in a transparent manner and that both the
leaders and personnel are accountable or responsible for all their actions and decisions.
The Constitution also defines the political culture; the division of power, formal political rules
and how they are made, interpreted, and implemented, and it describes the values and norms of the
society (Wiseman, 2007).
The Constitution divides the power between the different levels of governments and between
individuals in the bureaucratic organizations, as well as the style of leadership required for the
bureaucratic institution.
The Constitution describes the values of the nation, which is more than desirable characteristics,
defines and regulates the moral and ethical direction of the nation (Asmal & James, 2001). The
Constitution also affects the bureaucratic practices.
According to Will (1983, p. 79)
The Constitution does not just distribute power, it does so in a cultural context of
principles and beliefs and expectations about appropriate social outcomes of the exercise
of this power… A Constitution not only presupposes a consensus of “views” on
fundamentals, it also presupposes concern for its own continuance. Therefore, it
presupposes efforts to predispose rising generations to the “views,” habits, and
dispositions that underlie institutional arrangements. In this sense, a Constitution is not
only an allocator of power; it is also the polity frame of mind.
In addition, the Constitution embodies and recognizes norms and values of liberty and social
equity, lives, security of the people, and economic structure of the state (Camniker, 1986). Added Spicer
and Terry (1993), the existence of bureaucracy are to preserve the Constitution and the sovereignty. The
Constitution is the standard to remedy the defect of the bureaucracy in respect to representation, a
standard to the separation of power, and explains how public leaders help the citizens in character
development (Spicer & Terry, 1993).
Terry (1995) argued that, “the Constitution is the foundation of our society and synthesizes the
society’s frame of mind” (p. 28). When public leaders, either elected or appointed, and public servants
take an oath to serve the public and to preserve the nation, they make a moral commitment to preserve the
continuous process of the Constitution that involves moral, values, beliefs, and standards and interests of
the public. This represents their commitment. This commitment is expressed in their daily practice
through their fidelity to duty in the government institutions. This includes the values that are embodied in
the Constitution and through this institutional value; the government is able to sustain the cohesion and
moral balance of the state.
The cultural values, as characterized in the Constitution, are perpetual and the preservation of the
values depends upon the security of the institution. The security of the institution, according to Terry
(1995) involves stability, strength and integrity. Therefore, it is impossible to study the government
without the Constitution.
The Constitution carries several goals, which are representativeness, transparency, equity or equal
opportunity, equal access to services that the market cannot provide. The representation indicates that
they represent the institution and use their knowledge and education to solve the problems or serve their
fellow citizens, as White stated in her Education. These goals are contrary to the individualistic goal of
each bureaucratic organization or the common theme of goals that mimic that of the private corporation,
which is efficiency (Radman-Liw & Connaughton, 2005), doing more with less resources (Shim &
4
Siegel, 1997) or higher profits (Ross & De Bettignies, 2004).
In terms of judicial process, bureaucracy is the body of constitutional provisions, statutes,
executive orders, and other binding directives that generally regulate the administration of the
government. It is a legal and judicial institution (Radman-Liw & Connaughton, 2005), and the
regulatory law of public administration that applies across-the-board to agencies… It
typically pertains to procedures for rule making, adjudication and dispute restitution,
transparency, enforcement,… and fairness in administrative decision making as well as to
regulate safeguarding individual rights in the course of administrative operations… and…
is central to public administrative practices (Rosenbloom & Rene, 2010, p. 1).
Theory of Bureaucracy
Another way of solving the problem in the government is studying about the theory of the
bureaucracy itself.
We are living in the contemporary world that theory becomes insignificant in our decisionmaking process and in doing the tasks. Even in our study of becoming scholars, we are made believe that
practicality rules. As a result, we do not know how to apply theory into practice. Chairman Mao, in his
Selected Writing, stated that applying theory into practice is good for all works. Added Thompson (2005),
it gives good foundation, is a good practice, guarantees higher standards and quality, promotes
professionalism, and provides more sustainable result.
Trying to solve a problem in the government or working in the government without knowing and
understanding the theory is similar to building a castle in the sand. When the rain comes and the flood
raises, the castle is swept away.
Many people’s understanding of bureaucracy is an administrative process that is full of “red tape”
(Welch & Pandey, 2007), one that has the most rigid structure (Alvinius, 2012). On the contrary,
bureaucracy is a formal (Merton, 1957; Riggs, 1994), a difficult, vast and complex organization (Jones,
2003; Blau & Scott, 2003). It is a social administrator (Fu-Lay, 2008) and a field of science and art
(Frederickson, 2000). It is a hierarchical institution (Olsen, 2006/2005; Dube, 1963; Weber, 1947), and
one “can provide the capacity and expertise to handle technically complex policy issues” (Meier &
O’Toole, 2006, p. 1).
As a formal organization, it encompasses the entire unit of government, which includes the
federal government, the provincial government, counties and the municipal governments, the village
government, and all their bodies, as well as the military units (the army, the police force, the air force, the
navy, and the marine).
As a formal organization, the bureaucracy is not competitive, either between the different levels
of governments or among bureaucratic organizations (Blau & Scott, 2003; Graham, 2007; Kong, 2008;
Svara, 2006), but is driven by mission with multiple objectives (Graham, 2007; Shafritz & Russell, 2000).
It has certain administrative units and formally specializes in managing and organizing the flow of
communication in each organization. This certain administrative unit is formally specializes in managing,
planning, organizing, and coordinating the flow of communication and personnel activities within the
bureaucratic structure (Hamel & Breen, 2007).
Bureaucracy is a unique organization (Kramer, 1998) - one that exists to accomplish production
related to economic goals, organizes production through systematic and scientific inquiry, maximizes
production through specialization and division of labor, knowledge, and expertise (Weber, 1947) and
people act according to rational economic principles. It is an academic field (Selden, 1997; Ronquillo,
2008), a specialized scientific field application (Styhre, 2007), a field of professionalism and
managerialism applications (Milakovich & Gordon, 2008; Du Gay, 2005. It represents a machine model
(McTigue, 2004), in which one engine mobilizes the works and activities of the other engines. It is antinepotism, anti-emotions or against individuality and cruelty, capricious and uses subjective judgments
5
(Bennis, 1968). Its engines are part of a difficult, unique and complex organization (Jones, 2003; Kramer,
1998).
As an organization, Frederickson (2000) also stated, the bureaucracy has forms, designs,
experiences, language that, at its very best, is unique, compelling, and beautiful, has very high ideas and
noble purpose of the society, while hierarchical structure is its norm.
Transforming the government into small business units, as McTigue suggested has resulted in the
government loss its status as a public institution and with the emphasis on smaller government and the
laying off public servants, the remaining public servants have neglected the raison d’ètre of the institution
and public characteristics. The institution has lost its identity as a field with unique discipline, its norms,
values, standards, and qualities, but merely small business units, whose bureaucrats are plutocrats
(McTigue, 2004). It is being led by politicians who consider themselves as “experts in every issue”
(Anderson, Hilderman, & Loat, 2010) and act as agents to negotiate deals on behalf of the clients with the
bureaucrats or “managers” under the New Public Management.
As a hierarchical institution, the main responsibility of the bureaucracy is to improve the welfare
of the people in the state, maintain the sovereignty, protect the citizens, and maintain the economic
political and social security stability of the country. It is a mission driven organization (Graham, 2007;
Shafritz & Russell, 2000). It is designed to emphasize different values (Kramer, 1998; Lowery, 2000),
large and complex because it associates with the increasing complexities of social problems, the growth
of human populations and its needs, and the fragmentation of the institution (Weber, 1947) with a formal
structure and distinct characteristics (Aluko & Adesopo, 2004). As a hierarchical institution, it promotes
equality and impartiality in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, and so forth (Selden, 1997). It is a
diverse and dynamic institution, which utilizes knowledge and education expertise in conducting its daily
tasks (Du Gay, 2000).
The bureaucracy has the legitimate right to exercise control regardless of any resistance from the
others and its administrative process is based on knowledge, scientific principles, and managerial
professionalism, which is in accordance with the theoretical foundation of public administration (Weber,
1947). Both Weber and Dube (1963) stated that the bureaucracy exercises political power according to its
nature of legitimacy in which it has several specific authorities, which are based on a code or a set of
rules. Without the understanding of the bureaucracy, it is easy for a person to grow dictatorial while
occupying the leadership position.
In terms of the administrative process, bureaucracy is a formal administrative structure with
distinct characteristics and problems (Aluko & Adesopo, 2004). Styhre (2007) stated that it utilizes
administrative, scientific modes of thinking with scientific procedures and practices and it is, said Long
(1952), fiduciary of the people. As a hierarchical institution, it is “designed rationally to coordinate the
work of many individuals in the pursuit of large scale administrative tasks” (Aluko & Adesopo, 2004, p.
15), and solving public problems (Harari, 2003). Scientific work cannot be done in a fast phase mode or
applying theory into practice needs time, not speed.
Weber (1947) argued that bureaucracy has a hierarchical structure and it is the most efficient and
effective organization. It is congruent with the Constitution because it has a “moral obligation to preserve
and sustain constitutional principles” (Rohr, 19866, p. 181) and it is autonomous, but no one is
overlapping the other in terms of jurisdiction, duties, responsibilities, and authorities. This structure gives
the leaders an active role in managing the administration of the bureaucracy, not as performing actors.
Elliot Jacques (1990) agreed with Weber that it is the most efficient, the hardiest, and the most
natural structure ever devised for a large and complex organization. It is not rigid, insensitive or power
striving, but a feature of modern organizations whose character is greater effectiveness (Aluko &
Adesopo, 2004). The bureaucracy with its hierarchical structure indicates its democratic characteristics
(Dube (1963). Merton (1957) argued that this structure eliminates personality and non-rational decision,
and added Aluko and Adesopo (2004), bureaucratic personnel are required to perform their tasks with
managerial professionalism and to provide impartial treatment to the citizens, and it determines the
success of the organization and that of the society (Boyte, 2004) as a whole. It also promotes equality and
impartiality in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, and so forth (Selden, 1997).
6
In terms of power, Beetham (1996) quoted Weber that hierarchical structure might be a threat to
individual freedom to those who embrace liberal capitalism characteristics. The liberal capitalism
characteristics include, added Beetham, individual self-financing activity in business and politics, in terms
of personal ownership, and power itself. Taking into account of human characteristics, Weber argued that
hierarchical structure limits individual freedom for monopoly and control. This is related to what is
defined in the Constitution that a person’s power is limited to his authority and responsibility. Without
this limitation, there is a tendency for a man in power to become an autocrat, a totalitarian, or a dictator,
which is a man’s greatest want.
From the Weber’s work, Von Mises (1983) argued that this hierarchical structure ensures that
everyone shares the responsibility to relieve social and economic burden of the society. When it comes to
education, White (1952) stated that it is the true purpose of education – to use education and knowledge
to help fellow citizens. The bureaucracy with its hierarchical structure emphasizes the word of Abraham
Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson that the government is of the people, by the people and for the people
(Boyte, 2004).
As an institution, Weber (1947) argued that the bureaucracy has the legitimate right to exercise
control regardless of any resistance from the others and its administrative process is based on knowledge,
scientific principles, and managerial professionalism, which is in accordance with the theoretical
foundation of public administration. Weber indicated that the bureaucracy exercises political power
according to its nature of legitimacy in which it has several specific authorities, such as, charismatic
authority based on individual’s outstanding characteristics; traditional authority, which is essentially a
respect for culture and custom; and rational legal authority, which is based on a code or a set of rules.
According to Kaplan (1968), bureaucracy is an organization that is designed for social
development with theoretically oriented, to provide latent structures to meet the changing contingencies
of the development process, to work with entire social system, to perform socialization or re-socialization
functions, and is committed to emphasize its practice on norms, standards, and values of the society.
Weber (1947), Meier and Krause (1997), as well as Rosen, Boothe, Dahlby, and Smith (1999)
explained that bureaucracy has legitimate power and specific authorities. These authorities make the
members of the bureaucracy to obey the rules or codes of the organization (Dube, 1963). The law of the
bureaucracy indicates that it looks after the interests of the people. Officials in the bureaucracy, even
though they have these authorities, obey these authorities within the limit of the law (Dube, 1963). This is
very different from the corporate governance officials under the New Public Management, particularly the
politicians, who have established themselves as the bottom liners or political armies to perform multiple
tasks or as plutocrats whose job is to negotiate trade on behalf of the interest groups (McGrath, 2009).
The bureaucracy represents the public and to produce and manage it according to public
preferences (Meier & Krause, 2003) and to serve the public (Dube, 1963). While many are trying to
remove the bureaucracy and replace it with a corporation, Kaufman (1976) stated once the bureaucracy is
established, it is difficult and impossible to eliminate it because it has roles and functions that the market
cannot fulfilled (Rosen, Boothe, Dahlby, & Smith, 999).
The framework of the bureaucracy is defined by the Constitution that sets forth intergovernmental
relations and all are operating with the same constraint and one mechanism (Vasu, Stewart, & Garson,
1998), and its interorganization are created by laws and statutes that are inherently political. Vasu,
Stewart, and Garson also argued that the Constitution mandates the limitation on the behavior of public
leaders, their words and actions, even personal lives are subject to public scrutiny, and they are subject to
direct political influence.
Peace, tranquility, and democratic government can be achieved through the establishment of a
hierarchy organization, one that is adopted by Weber who then applied on the civilian government
(Sifuna, 2000; Koonings & Krujit, 2002). Similarly, public leadership is rooted from the traditional
military system of leadership (Shafritz & Russell, 2000).
Consistent with the above theory, Rosenbloom and Rene stated that bureaucracy is an executive
and managerial field. This includes legislative functions of rulemaking and adjudication, which are the
functions of the government as legislative or substantive, procedural and interpretive, transparency and
7
individual rights, and how judicial trial is a process, not a political endeavor, and it has some flexibility
and focuses on legal rights and obligations, not on the administrative cost-benefits analysis.
According to Kaplan (1968), bureaucracy is an organization that is designed for social
development with theoretically oriented to provide latent structures to meet the changing contingencies of
the development process, to work with the entire social system, to perform socialization or resocialization functions, and is committed to emphasize its practice on norms, standards, and values of the
society. Therefore, practicality has no place in the government!
Bureaucratic Management of the Administrative Process
The administrative system of the bureaucracy is very much different from that of the private
sector because it requires the scientific, management, and professional application. As a formal
organization, its administrative system is very formal and this formality is embeded in the system as a
top-down approach.
The top-down process is the most efficient and modern process (Jacque, 1990). A top-down
system requires leaders, who are well educated, masters of the tasks, and leaders who possess the right
personality traits, have the technical capacities, competent, and have all qualities. They are also required
to have knowledge expertise in the field they are assigned (Covell, 2013).
We always receive letters from the government with only contain the date the letter was issued,
“Your Reference and Our Reference,” or “My Copy,” and the electronic signature of the leader or any
other person. We know right away, the leader or the person whose name written at the bottom of the letter
does not know the case or does not know anything. Sometimes at the bottom of the letter is written, “On
behalf of.” We know right away that the person whose name is at the bottom of the letter never reads our
letter and the letter sent to us with his electronic signature. We know that the system is broken, much
disorganized, and much dysfunctional.
While the use of electronic signature has become a tradition in the private sector, the use of
electronic signature in the public sector is the same as “forgery,” and it is a crime. It shows that any
person can become the leader. The worse scenario is that people in the system can engineer bribery,
corruption, and fraud, using the leaders’ name, but the leaders do not know. To keep the leaders
responsible for such unethical practice, people who use the leaders’ signature give money to the leaders
and the leaders cannot say much. The bribery or corruption comes from the backdoor or side door, but is
then channeled upward, and downward – spreading along the front line and becomes systemic. King
Solomon says that if the leaders believe in lies the subordinates are evil.
The administrative system of the bureaucracy is the central nervous system that if it is broken and
dysfunction, the bureaucracy becomes paralyzed. The government at of today is thriving to survive,
without the backbone and the central nervous system. In fact, it is dying at diminishing rate.
At every bureaucratic organization, there should be a central communication unit, which is the
central nervous system. Before a person becomes a leader or even a public servant, that person must be
trained, about the Constitution, the theory of bureaucracy and how they should apply their meaning in
their daily tasks. He must go through the development process to understand about the organizational
structure of the bureaucracy as a whole, the organizational structure of the organization they are working
for, the roles and functions of the government, and those of the organization in particular and its relations
to other bureaucratic organizations, and the most important one is the central nervous system.
If the central nervous system of the government is properly designed and functioned well, the
bureaucracy will be very effective and efficient (Shafritz & Russell, 2000). Politicians do not need to
travel around the country or around the world seeking public inputs. When politicians travel, it costs the
government multiple. Millions of dollars of money spent on traveling, hospitality and accommodation,
the time loss of doing little but negotiating trade, the opportunity to learn their true and real tasks, making
policy and regulation is gone, they lose the opportunity to learn to develop themselves as public leaders,
and loss of opportunity to develop themselves and their subordinates. This constant travel makes them
8
very susceptible to external influence and they lose sense of reality of their organization.
The following diagram shows how the administrative system of a bureaucratic organization
should be designed. This system eliminates the activists and lobbyists, who, under the New Public
Management, have direct access to the politicians and political appointed leaders and control their
policies and decisions as well as eliminates waste of public resources. However, it allows all citizens to
have access to the leaders. It gives the opportunity to the leaders to develop their skills and at the same
time, they develop their subordinates. The first step of developing leadership skills is reading and this
system enforces that being a leader one must read. Reading is like a breath of life for a public leader.
Apex
Technical
Structured
Middle
Supporting
Operation
Central
Communication
Unit or Central
Nervous System
Citizens
Incoming inputs /
problems from the citizens
Many argue and demand that the government should simplify its system and standard and this
includes the administrative system. That is because they do not understand the purpose of the
categorization and classification in the bureaucracy. Alternatively, it will open the door for people without
education and knowledge to work in the government.
As a field of art, science, managerial and professionalism, the use of category and classification in
the administration system is to ensure that these fields are applied. It ensures that problems are handled by
a person who has the authority and responsibility-one who has the education and knowledge expertise,
and can solve the problem professionally. This system ensures accountability and it requires that the
leaders should be involved in the day-to-day management and operation of the organization. The leaders
are also decision makers (Covell, 2013), but before making decision, they must read, research, analyze,
and compare and contrast by utilizing scientific reality before drawing a conclusion. Decisions in the
public sector cannot be made by any person, but only by a person who has the position and authority
because it relates to responsibility and accountability.
Under the flat function, leadership role is insignificant (Olson & Eoyang, 2003) because it is a
dualistic system - one with the leaders on top who seek their own team at the top (Killian, 2005/2007) and
the operational staffs or the frontline staffs who are considered to have employable skills and are grouped
together to perform multiple tasks (McShane, 1992). In this system, the leaders do not read both the
9
incoming and outgoing information. All are being processed at the frontline – by any person.
The problem with doing multiple task is that it removes education and knowledge specialization.
This system requires a person to know only the very basic thing while everything else will be learned on
the job.
As the frontline manages the operational of the organization, the leaders are without tasks,
without authority and without responsibility. The leaders lose the opportunity to develop leadership skills
and improve their technical capacity. Hence, despite the cry for accountability, this system eliminates
accountability (Daft & Fitzgerald, 1998). It dampens the leaders from developing themselves to become
competent leaders and ones who have the technical capacity, are responsible and accountable. In the
current system as well, the leaders and their subordinates do work in the oral environment. The problem
of working in the oral environment rather than in non-verbal environment is that we think in binary. Our
mind is so taxed with the acronyms that we lose our ability to think analytically and critically. This is one
of the greatest failures among leaders worldwide.
From the above diagram, it explains that the bureaucratic management system is a top-down
process. Effective and efficient organization requires a communication unit. The leader in this unit should
be a person who has higher learning degree, one who understands and values knowledge and education as
well as knowledge specialization. It also requires that he must know well the organization management
and the organizational structure of the organization, the roles, and functions of the organization and its
relation to other organizations. This system provides strong government because the Apex is backed up
by the supporting unit and technical unit. These are the backbone of the organization.
This system requires that the leaders at the Apex to read all the incoming and outgoing
information. This ensures the proper control of the organization and knowing what is going on under the
table (Towne in Shafritz, Ott, & Jang, 2005). This is one of the leadership tasks – read. If the leader does
not read, he is working in a dreamland.
Many are self-boasting that they know how to fix the management problem in the government,
but what they use is a garbage can solution, one that seems to be like a solution but not a solution. Rather,
it represents a new way of doing things. The current problem co-exists with other problems, grows, and
becomes complex that many find it difficult to solve it.
The use of education and knowledge expertise in the government is not only guaranteed high
standard and quality as well as professionalism but also democracy (Wellisch, 1988/2000). When
education, knowledge expertise, position or authority and responsibility are combined into the tasks, the
central nervous system administration requires that a certain problem will be categorized and classified as
follows:
Unit (authority/position and responsibility – general) – case/Section (specialization) –
case/date (incoming or outgoing)
This categorization and classification determines that a specific unit will handle a certain
problem or task according to its specialization and by section, which has the knowledge expertise. It is
impossible to have a person to handle everything or the business term is “multiple tasking.” With multiple
tasking, a person does not need to have education and knowledge, but practicality and some basic
knowledge of the task. The rest he learns on the job.
With the above diagram, all communication will go through the leaders’ desk. The leaders should
read them and delegate the task to the right section, and the section leader will delegate the task to the
right person – a person who has the knowledge expertise and education. A person cannot be a one-man
band or Jack-Of-All-Trades because in the end he is mastering in none.
Using practically, when the leaders are reluctance to learn about their jobs or duties, but to allow
the front line to make the decisions for them and handles all problems of the citizens, whom to these front
liners as a “nuisance” (Ciotti, 2013), which eventually leads the leaders to become complacent and
indifference. When the leaders become complacent and indifference, the standard and quality are
becoming lower and lower.
10
The person in charge of this central nervous system should also be a person with high degree of
knowledge, one who understands the value of education, knowledge and knowledge specialization, has
thorough understanding of the organizational structure of the government organization and its
interrelationship, and the roles and functions of the government, as well as those of the organization.
The use of Post Office Box is common in the private sector as a way to hide the identity of a
business or an individual. The same is now being adopted in the government. This is not the nature of the
government because the government uses civic address, which serves its principles of transparency and
accountability. In fact, the use of Post Office Box address makes it easy for people to, once they work in
the government, steal the information, and masquerade themselves as public officials and start fraud the
citizens. This is what happens with the Canada Revenue Agency today. Once people work in this Agency,
they take people’s information and start chasing after them for money by proposing an audit. They are
knowledge illiterate and are never trained about public sector auditing. Hence, they do an audit that seem
legit, but in reality it is a fraudulent practice. Using the technology, they work in a network that if you
want to catch them, you have to learn of the changes in the Agency, about these people, and the changes
in the organization. My husband is one of the victims of fraud done by Canada Revenue Agency auditor
collusively with other agents in the Agency – those who have left and are still working in the Agency.
They use Canada Revenue Agency addresses but with different Post Office Box number. So is with
Human Resources Skills and Development Canada with the case of the missing hard drive that contains
thousands of student loans information. People use Postal Box Office numbers using the National Student
Loan Centre address and the letterhead.
The efficient and effective administrative system requires that government always uses official
letterhead in all its communication. The most sophisticated crime today is technology related. People use
the computer to make the letterhead of the Canada Revenue Agency and the National Student Loan
Centre and try collecting money from the innocent and ignorant victims.
Electronic mail has also been the trendy communication. It is faster. However, it is not the culture
or nature of the government. The citizens can communicate with the government through email, but to the
government, it is unprofessional, poor standard and without quality. Any person can claim that he is “so
and so.” It is very irresponsible if that person claims that he is the leader. It is dishonest and a fraud. The
government always replies to the citizens in a form of hard copy, which is a formal process and
professional way of doing things.
As of today, the government is losing its standard and quality. They are poor. But because the
management of the government is running bottom-up, the leaders grow complacent and indifference.
Besides, they do not really know what is brewing in the operational department. As a result, the standard
and quality become low and lower.
Every organization must have this central nervous system. Without it, the organization is
dysfunction. Once it is very dysfunction, it is easy for a person to infiltrate the system and conduct his
operation whatever it is. It is very easy to destroy the nation when the government is without the middle
level. When the government organizations are destroyed, so is the nation, especially when the government
rejects knowledge. Prophet Hosea (4:6) says, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because
thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee.” Applying knowledge and education in the task is
good for all works, said Chairman Mao, and the nation will be blessed. This was the success of the past.
References
Akin, D. (2012, August 8). Waiting for years and Canada’s oh so-broken: access to Information System.
On The Hill.
Aluko, A. A. O. & Adesopo, A. A. (2004). An appraisal of the two faces of bureaucracy in relation to the
Nigerian society. Journal of Social Science, 8 (1), 13-21.
Alvinius, A. (2012, autumn). Inadequacy of bureaucratic Organizations: Organizational Adaptation
through Boundary Spanning in a Civil-Military Context. Res Militaries, 3 (1).
Anderson, K., Hilderman, J., & Loat, A. (2010). The Accidental Citizens? Toronto, Ontario: Samara
11
Asmal, K. & James, W. (2001, winter). Education and Democracy in South Africa Today: Why South
Africa Matters. Daedalus, 130 (1), 185-204.
Beetham, D. (1996). Bureaucracy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Bennis, W. G. (1968). Beyond Bureaucracy. In Warren G. Bennis & Philip E. Slater. The Temporary
Society (eds). New York, NY: Harper & Row, 53-76.
Blank, W. (2001). The 108 Skills of Natural Born Leaders. New York, NY: AMACOM Division
American Management Association.
Blau, P. M. & Scott, R. W. (1962). Formal Organizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco, CA:
Chandler Publishing Co.
Boyte, H. (2004). Everyday Politics. Pennsylvania, PA: Pennsylvania University Press.
Camniker, E. H. (1986, May). Note: A Norm-based Remedial Model for Underchnichisme Statues. Yale
Law Journal.
Congleton, R. D. (2004). Informational Limits to Democratic Public Policy. Virginia: George Mason
University.
Covell, C. (2013). Leaders of the 21st Century and the Key to Leadership Foundation. Paper Prepared for
International Public Administration Conference, October 24-26, Cape Town, South Africa.
Daft, R. L. (1998). Essentials of organization theory and design. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western
College Publishing
Docherty, D. (1990, September). Are politicians rational actors? Political Careers in the Canadian House
of Commons. Thesis. McMaster University: Faculty of Political Science.
Dube, S. C. (1963). Bureaucracy and Nation Building in Transition Societies. United Nation’s
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. Expert Working Group in Social Prerequisites
to economic growth, Kyrenia, Cyprus, 17 – 26 April 1963.
Du Gay, P. (2005). The Values of Bureaucracy. London, England: Oxford University Press.
Du Gay, P. (2000). In Praise of Bureaucracy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fernandes, P., Weissinger, R., & Purcell, E. (2003). God, Government, and the Road to Litany: A
Christian View of Government and Morality. Maitland, FL: Xulon Press.
Frederickson, H. G. (2000, January/February). Can Bureaucracy Be Beautiful? Public Administration
Review, 60 (1), 47-53.
Frederickson, H. G. (1999). Ethics and the New Managerialism. Public Administration & Management:
An Interactive Journal, 4 (2), 299-324. Retrieved June 30, 2010 from EBSCO Academic Premier.
Fu-Lay, T. Y. (2008, August). Uncertainty human agency and e-government. Transforming Government
People, Process and Policy, 2 (4), 283-296.
Graham, A. (2007). Canadian Public Sector Financial Management. Montreal, Que: SPS.
Graham, J. & Marques, E. C. (2000, October). Understanding Constitutions: A Roadmap for
Communities. Institute on Governance, Ottawa, Canada.
Hamel, G. & Breen, B. (2007). The Future of Management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Harari, O. (2003). The Leadership Secrets of Colin Powell. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Company.
Helmke, G. & Levitsky, S. (2004, December). Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research
Agenda, 4 (2), 725-740.
Jacques, E. (1990, January – February). In Praise of Hierarchy. Harvard Business Review.
Jones, B. D. (2003). Bounded Rationality and Political Science: Lessons from Public Administration and
Public Policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13, 395-412.
Kaplan, B. H. (1968, December). Notes on a non-Weberian Model of Bureaucracy: The Case of
Development Bureaucracy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13 (3), 471-483.
Kaufman, H.A. (1976). Are Governmental Organizations Immortal? Washington D.C.: Brookings.
Kessler, T. & Alexander, N. (2004, October). Assessing the Risk in the Private Provision of Essential
Services. G-24 Discussion Paper Series, No. 31. UN Conference on Trade and Development.
Washington, DC: United Nations.
Killian, S. (2005/2007). ABC of Effective Leadership: A Practical Overview of Leadership Theories.
Australian Leadership Development Centre. Retrieved August 10, 2008 from
12
http://www.leadershipdevelopment.edu.au/Content_Common/pg-effectivetheory.seo#fielder's%20contingency%20theory
Kong, D. (2008). Performance Management or Score Management? New Challenges for Democratic
Accountability. The Berkley Electronic Press, 4 (3).
Koonings, K. & Kruijit, D. (2002). Political armies: the military and nation building in the age of
democracy. London, UK: Zed Books.
Kramer, R. (1998). Nonprofit Organization: Will Sector Matter? Policy Series. The Aspen Institute.
Long, N. E. (1952, September). Bureaucracy and Constitutionalism. The American Political Science
Review, 46 (3), 808-818.
Lowery, D. (2000, March). The Presidency, the Bureaucracy, and Reinvention: A Gentle Plea for Chaos.
Presidential Studies Quarterly, 30 (1), 79-108.
Mao Tse-tung (1970, February 19). Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung. IX. Twenty Manifestations of
Bureaucracy. Joint Publications Research Service, Washington, DC.
McGrath, C. (2009). Interest Groups and Lobbying in the United States and Comparative Perspectives.
Lewinston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 103-134.
McShane, S. L. (1992). Canadian Organizational Behavior. Buss Ridge, IL: Richard Irwin, Inc.
McTigue, R. M. Hon. (2004). Turning Bureaucrats into Plutocrats: Can Entrepreneurialism Work in the
Federal Government? A Testimony for the Committee on Government Reform of United States
House of Representatives. Retrieved August 24, 2005 from
http://www.mercatus.org/pdf/materials/1275.pdf.
Meier, K. J. & Krause, G. (2003). The Scientific Study of Bureaucracy: An Overview. Politics, policy, &
organizations: frontiers in the scientific study of bureaucracy. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan
University Press.
Meier, K. J. & O’Toole, L. J. (2006). Bureaucracy in a democratic state: a governance perspective.
Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Meier, K. J., O'Toole Jr., L. J., & Hawes, D. (2007). Testing the Theoretical Determinants of Political
Control over the Bureaucracy: Taking Wood and Waterman Seriously. Conference Papers American Political Science Association, 2007 Annual Meeting, 1-40.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Bureaucratic Structure and Personality. Social Theory and Social Structure.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 195-206.
Milakovich, M. E. & Gordon, G. J. (2008). Public Administration in America. Cengange Learning.
Milanovich, D., Driskell, J. E., Stout, R. J., & Salas, E. (1998). Status and cockpit dynamics: A review
and empirical study. Group Dynamics, 2, 155–167.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Olsen, J. P. (2007, January). Organization Theory, Public Administration, Democratic Governance.
Working Paper, No. 01. Center for European Studies, University of Oslo.
Olson, E. E. & Eoyang, G. H. (2003). Facilitating Organization Change: Lessons from Complexity
Science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer.
Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneur Spirit Transforming
the Public Sector. Addison-Wesley Publication Co. In Shafritz, J. M. & Russell, B. W. (2000).
Introducing Public Administration. New York, NY: Addison Wesley-Longman.
Radman-Liw, T. & Connaughton, B. (2005). Public administration as a field of study: Divergence or
Convergence in the light of Europeanization? Trames, 9 (59/54), 4, 348-360.
Reed, B. J. & Swain, J. W. S. (1990). Public finance Administration. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Riggs, F. W. (1994, January/February). Bureaucracy and the Constitution. Public Administration Review,
54 (1), 65-72.
Rohr, J. A. (1986). To Run a Constitution: The Legitimacy of the Administrative State. Lawrence, KA:
Kansas University Press.
Ronquillo, J. C. (2008, April 10). Establishing a Locus of Native American Governance in Academia? An
Interdisciplinary Approach to Informing Public Administration Research. Retrieved September 1,
2009 from SSRN: http://ssrn.com.
13
Rosenbloom, D. H. (2007, February). Reinventing Administrative Prescriptions: The Call for
Democratic-Constitutional Impact Statements and Scorecards. Public Administration Review, 67
(1), 15-21.
Rosenbloom, D. H. & Rene, H. (2010). Foundations of Public Administration. Public Administration
Review
Rosen, H. S., Boothe, P., Dahlby, B. & Smith, R. S. (1999). Public Finance in Canada. Toronto, ON:
McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Ross, T. & De Bettignies, J. (2004). The Economics of Public-Private Partnership in Canadian Public
Policy – Analyse de Politiques: xxx (2), 136 -154.
Rotberg, R. I. (2006). The Roots of Africa’s Leadership Deficit. Compass, Center for Public Leadership,
28-32.
Selden, S. C. (1997). The promise of representative bureaucracy: diversity and responsive in a
government agency. New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Shafritz, J. M. & Russell, E. W. (2000). Introducing Public Administration. New York, NY: Addison
Wesley – Longman.
Shim, J. & Siegel, J. G. (1997). Financial Management for Nonprofits: The Complete Guide to
Maximizing Resources and Managing Assets. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
Sifuna, D. (2000). Education for Democracy and Human Rights in African Schools: The Kenyan
Experiences. Journal of Africa Development, xxxv (1 and 2), 213-239.
Smith, A. (1993). Wealth of Nations. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Spicer, M. W. & Terry, A. L. D. (1993). Legitimacy History and Logic: Public Administration and the
Constitution. Public Administration Review, 53, 239-245.
Styhre, A. (2007). The Innovative Bureaucracy in an Age of Fluidity. New York, NY: Francis & Taylor.
Svara, J. H. (2007). The Ethics Primer for Public Administrators in Government and Nonprofit
Organizations. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University Press.
Terry, L. D. (1998). Administrative leadership neo-managerialism and the public management movement.
Public Administration Review, 58. Retrieved July 2, 2010 from EBSCO Academic Premier.
Terry, L. D. (1995). Leadership of Public Bureaucracies: The Administrator as Conservator. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thompson, J. R. (2005). Organization Theory and Public Management. Australia: Wadsworth.
Towne, H. R. (2005). The Engineer as Economist. In J. M. Shafritz, J. S. Ott., & Y. S. Jang, Classics of
Organization Theory. Australia: Thompson –Wadsworth, 44-47.
Vasu, M. L., Stewart, D. W., & Garson, G. D. (1998). Organizational Behavior and Public Management.
San Francisco, CA: CRC Press.
Von Mises, L. (1983). Bureaucracy. Grove City, Penn: Libertarian Press.
Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by A. M. Henderson &
Talcott Parsons, The Free Press.
Welch, E. W. & Pandey, S. K. (2007). E-Government and Bureaucracy: Toward a Better Understanding
of Intranet Implementation and Its Effect on Red Tape. Journal of Public Administration
Research Theory, 17 (3), 379-404.
Wellisch, D. (1998/2000). Theory of Public Finance in a Federal State. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Will, G. (1983). Statecraft as Soulcraft: What government does. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Wiseman, N. (2007) In Search of Canadian Political Culture. Vancouver-Toronto: UBC Press.
Author Brief Biography:
She studies public policy and administration with a specialization on public leadership and management
from Walden University. She earns her master’s degree on public administration from Walden University
with the same specialization. She has completed her dissertation on Canadian government organizational
14
structure and its impact on leadership and management. She is expecting to graduate in summer 2015. She
has attended and made presentation at several international conferences on public administration.