Governance in the Public Administration Context
Introduction
The perception and superlative model of statesmanship move down from ancient times to contemporary times. Over the years, the concept has been married to public administration over time, but contention remains on whether they are indistinguishable. Statesmanship is appearing to be incongruent with the whole concept of public administration, mainly because of the changing role of the state in modern-day governance (Newell, 2012). This discourse shall seek to construct a paradigm of Public Administration Statesmanship; it will also address the challenges that face public administration organization is the present day and lastly synthesize these challenges with the covenantal models of statesmanship, leadership and organizational behavior.
A Paradigm of Public Administration Statesmanship
It is agreeable that the concept of paradigm can now qualify to be among the overused words. However, it will still be used in this discourse owing to the fat that Kuyini & Kivunja (2017), posits that it is an instrumental concept that seeks to convey the arena of identity and the changing subtleties of the same identity. Notably, paradigmatic questions are of striking significance to the concept of public administration and its relationship to statesmanship.
- .
Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
It is the purpose of this section of the paper to differentiate between the paradigms of public administration, and the paradigms of the statesmanship, and attempt to justify the best ideology of Public Administration Statesmanship.
The Paradigms of Public Administration
There is a relationship that exists between the self-definition the public administration offers itself and the manner through which a representative government operates. For an individual to comprehend the field of public administration, one has to understand its complexity, as it is a merger of fields such as management science, organizational theory, and public interest concepts (Henry, 2017). Understanding public administration’s paradigms require comprehension of the various phases that make it up and whether they possess focus or locus. The focus and locus of the field change with the evolving paradigms of public administration (Henry, 2017). Over-representation of one ideology means that there is a complete neglect of the other in terms of explanation of the various paradigms of public administration.
The Politics/Administration Dichotomy
This is the first paradigm of public administration. Major proponents of this first paradigm were Leonard D. White and Frank J. Goodnow. According to Goodnow, the administration is related to policy execution, whereas politics is related to the expression of the will of a state or policies, both closely tied in with the two distinct functions of any government. The first paradigm places emphasis on the locus of public administration, which implies the place that it should be, that is, centering it on the bureaucracy of the government (Henry, 2017). Bureaucracy identifies as a government system in which the state officials make the critical decisions rather than representatives that are elected.
Public administration and political science in colleges and universities across the United States were intertwined and this made sense owing to the fact that this is where future administrators and statesmen got an education. During 1900 to around 1930, there was what was then referred to as public service movement that was simultaneously occurring in the United States’ universities (Henry, 2017). It is through the efforts of authors such as Leonard D. White that public administration began gathering academic notoriety around 1920 propagating ideologies such as the mission concerning public administration should be efficiency and economy, there should not be an intrusion of politics into administration, and management should offer itself to scientific study.
The Principles of Administration
William F. Willoughby was the proponent of this paradigm when he published his book on the principles of administration back in 1927. Advancement in the field of public administration led to the development of administrative principles which later on found ground in other areas such as real-world organizations, either private or public enterprises. Authors such as Lyndall Urwick and Luther Gulick further advanced the development of principles related to administration, where focus took center stage instead of the locus (Henry, 2017). Public administration as a growing field faced numerous opponents and challenges, especially in the mid-1930s with authors such as Chester Bernard offering conflicting perspectives.
Two ideologies that developed in the 1940s concerning public administration was the objection that developed which challenged the separation of administration with politics, and the existence of logical inconsistencies in relation to the various principles that existed in public administration. It is during this same time that the principles related to administration developed by William F. Willoughby also came under scrutiny. Opponents of administrative principles proved that there also existed counter-principles, which in themselves deemed the former null and void (Henry, 2017). Opponents to the administrative principles proposed that a new paradigm ought to exist which has two sides working together. The first dealt with the development of administration as a pure science grounded on principles of social psychology, whereas the other side dealt with prescriptions of public policy with the re-development of the political economy.
The Paradigms of Statesmanship
It is complex to follow the argument of the concept of Statesmanship mainly because of the odd lengths of the sections associated with it. The stranger spends only two pages to explain the idea of what Socrates spent two books titled the Republic to explain. Through the philosophical ideologies posited by the different scholars, they discuss different paradigms, but this section will look into Plato’s paradigm of statesmanship and Overeem and Baker modern-day paradigm of statesmanship
Plato’s Statesman
Plato in Statesman provides a paradigm for statesmanship through a weaving of temperate and courageous properties which are fundamental to the dispensation of Statesmanship obligations. According to Plato, Statesmanship requires a combination of the two properties but not an extreme of one. For example, temperate people tend to be quote, gentle and stable in carrying out their duties (Plato & In Ostwald, 1992). This type of people are excessively cautious; they stick to precedents and are fair in their dealings.
On the other hand, courageous people tend to be acute, aggressive and take intense action and take bold action. Notably, courageous people are not cautious, lack fairness, but they are effective. If statesmen take these characteristics to the extremes, then the public that is dependent on this leadership will be on the verge of destruction (Bernadete, 1992). Ideally, therefore, a statesman should weave the steady warlike traits of the courageous type with the supple, gentle character of the temperate type.
Statesmanship beyond Modern State
Overeem & Baker (2019), defined Statesmanship can be defined as a leadership that is morally excellent on the level polity. President Truman once quipped that a Statesman is a politician who has been dead for ten to fifteen years. This quite contrary to what Dannhauser rightly qualified as statesmanship when he stated that as much as a statesman can be a politician, he is a politician that has exercised wise leadership. Through building of different conceptualizations of statesmanship, Overeem & Baker (2019) constructed the paradigm that in its purest forms, statesmanship equates to the idea of politically managing public affairs but not in the political rule manner, but in such a manner that allows for the leading of citizens through a stream of contingencies and confined by the conditions of the law.
Public Administration Statesmanship
The notions as presented by the various parties concerning public administration and statesmanship identifies two significant concerns; firstly, management of public affairs and leadership (Winston, Churchill: Studies in Statesmanship, n.d.). Building on the proposition of Plato on weaving properties, statesmanship is a product of the cultural accumulation of essential virtues which develop in the process of managing public affairs (Plato & In Ostwald, 1992). In that regard, therefore, Public administration Statesmanship is the exemplary display of leadership qualities that are neither extraordinarily courageous nor extremely temperate in the management of public affairs.
Challenges facing Public Administration Organizations Today
Issues arising out of the political, social and economic faces of the country form the key challenges affecting the Public administration organizations. It is prudent to note that Public administration in the United States differs from other countries because the country answers to the populace, given that taxpayers fund the running of public programs (Khan, 2018). Ethics guide the administration of public programs as well as the culture of the society and as such, the administration must change in congruence with the change in the government policies (Hubert et al. 2008). The challenges range from the existing political environment, contracting, technology, social equity and transparency. This section of the paper shall, therefore, discuss the contemporary challenges that are predominant in public administration organizations.
Political Setting
The political environment is a significant issue given that the United States has a two-party system. This, therefore, means that the Republican side advocates for a state-centered government as well as fewer programs while the Democratic Party advocate for the more centralized government (Milakovich & Gordon, 2009). The problem arising from this is the fact that the public administration organization must change the policies that affect their operations to suit the positions of the party in power (Khan, 2018). The current economic downturn in the last half-decade has also played a significant role in this regard since the statesmen charged with the management of public affairs are wary when it comes to the implementation of specific programs. The effect of this, on the organization, is that downsizing has become a trend. The administrators face the burden of seeking to fulfil their duties in delivering public services but using fewer employees. The work morale of these employees also dwindles with the capping of their raises and threatening of their jobs.
Contracting
There has been a demand for thriftiness in running the programs, and this has forced the administrators to turn to private contractors. In what could have been the saving step for most administration organization, this step has consequently led to opposite results. Notably, the services that form the basis of governance tend to be more cognizant of the existing policies and limitations ( Denhardt & Denhardt, 2009). Private contractors in disregard to this, have tended to be guided by other “rules”. The consequence of such has been the mushrooming of scandals, for example, the Blackwater issues in Iraq, as well as the abuses occasioned in the privatization of prisons and also the debacle, occasioned in the Veteran’s Administration. In the recent scandal, budget over-runs have been the result of contracting (Douglas & Meijer, 2016). However, the theory that has been existent with regards to this issue stating that the existence of competition could subdivide even further the efficient use of resources has some element of truth in it, but the key challenge remains to be the choice of what to privatize.
Technology
According to Pittman (2009), technology is a significant game-changer for Public administration organization. This is because technology is all-encompassing and demands implementation. In the sense that even if the public administration does not wish to implement the technology, it leaves them no choice. Additionally, most of the other sectors that have relations with public administration organizations have already shifted into data-oriented operations, these organizations must, therefore, conform to these operations in order for them to be able to interface with the other sectors (Khan, 2018). Furthermore, there is a question of cybersecurity which covers both organization and personal security. The operation of secure database systems for these organizations require the expert assistance of personnel who are more specialized in the administration of computer programs.
Social Equity
Establishing a public administration organization is done in order to create a representative of the social and cultural environments that are extant. For example, an organization tasked with the mandate of public housing in areas populated by the minority should ensure that they include a proportionate representation of the members from the minority in the organization (Khagram et al. 2013). It is prudent to note that this does not only apply to issues of ethnicity but also issues of gender and sexual orientation (Hubert et al. 2008). Organizations that exist as a result of this manner are often victims of conflicts ensuing between the members of the organizations and the cultural groups. However, regardless of the possibility of conflicts, organizations, while protecting the majority, should be considerate of the interests of the minorities.
Transparency
Hillary Clinton posited that Statesmen should possess both personal and public opinion(Khan, 2018). This is to mean that specific actions of the administrators could be contrary to their convictions, but they should take them for the good of the organization. In other situations, organizations tend not to be transparent about their actions basing their unforthcoming nature to the fact that the programs may be not be received well be the public or in other cases, claims that the public may not understand the actions (Albu & Flyverbom, 2016). Transparency demands that Statesmen walk the existing thin line that separates full public disclosures and having surreptitious policies. Notably, this challenge forms the core of other challenges such as the contracting and the social equity challenges.
Synthesis of Covenantal Model of Statesmanship, Leadership and Organizational Behavior and Challenges Facing Public Administration Organizations
According to Fischer (2010), covenantal models have sought to ensure that there is greater freedom enjoyed by the public and that personal leadership is limited. The Old Testament introduces the idea of the covenant between God and Man in the case of Abraham, where God expects the Israelites to circumcise their male sons as a sign of the covenant. Notably, the covenant between God and Noah touches on the issues of Public affairs (Genesis 9:9). In this covenant, God promised Noah that never again will he destroy the world with the waters of the flood as it had happened in this case. The establishment of covenants guided the relationship between the rulers and their subjects, and as such, the leadership of kings and judges in the Old Testament presented rulers who were accountable to both the public and the prophets. In light of this, the relationship between the public and public administration organizations is similar to a covenantal relationship since the public administration organization owes the public a duty to manage public affairs. This section of the discourse shall, therefore, discuss the covenantal model of statesmanship, leadership and organizational behavior concerning the contemporary challenges in public administration organizations.
Statesmanship
The debate brought by the confusion existing between statesmanship and leadership has been on several times. According to Newel (2012), statesmanship is not in any way, similar to leadership. A practical exemplar, in this case, is the case of George Marshall and the Japanese. The action of Marshall to put the Japanese into detention camps was a deferral to the civilian authority which passes as an act of leadership but which is not an act of statesmanship. Therefore, a questions arises as to what is statesmanship? Overeem & Baker (2019) defines statesmanship as the morally excellent leadership exuded at the organization level. Ceaser (2007) defined statesmanship to be the art of conducting matters that promote the public interests and similarly educates and ennobles the public.
The Ceaser definition is of paramount concern in this case, when the challenges facing public administration organizations are under study. Mainly, educating and enrolling the public are termed as elements of being a statesman. Information to the public, touching on operations of the organization should be easily accessible, available and understandable by the relevant populace. The challenge of transparency, therefore, arises and an issue of ethical concerns with regard to transparency of a public administrator equally arises. While Bentham, the proponent of Utilitarian would advocate for limited transparency(Lewis & Gillman, 2012), Acts 6:1-5 would expect that statesmen should be honest, of good reputation, and filled with both wisdom and Spirit. Bevir (2007), similarly proposes that organizations managing public affairs should account for every operation that they carry to the public who will be affected by the policy or program.
Minority populations have incessantly raised the issue of social equity. A good statesman guided by the covenantal model should be able to accommodate the ideas of other people. Inclusivity arises when every idea propagated by an individual is put into consideration when determining issues related to the individual (Alberti et al. 2006). It is in this regard; therefore, that approachability of a statesman in charge of a public administration appears in perspective. It is prudent to note that participation and inclusivity cannot happen if the statesman is unapproachable (Alberti et al. 2006). It is, therefore, befitting for statesmen, especially in areas with minority population to be approachable to the public to encourage the participation of the minority populace in the operations of a public administration organization.
Leadership
The concept of leadership, as proposed by Fischer (2010), is one that builds on theories of leadership. The covenantal approach to leadership is one that is concerned with the encouragement of public administrators to take ownership of their organizations and care for the objectives of the organizations. In this case, Fischer (2010) proposes several leadership theories and this discourse shall look into the trait theory and the contingency theory. The trait theory posits that leaders should have certain traits. It is prudent to note that this theory operates from the framework suggesting that leaders are born. One of the traits which are instrumental in our case is the transparency trait, and this touches on the concept of revealing every detail to the parties of the covenant (Mabillard & Zumofen, 2016). Leaders in public administration organizations owe a duty of being transparent to both the public and the subordinates at the organization. Possession of this trait, therefore, shall help a leader in one of these organizations to solve the issue of transparency.
The contingency theory, on the other hand, postulates that the leaders should be adaptive of every situation. The situations, in this case, could be the employee characteristics and the situational factors and as such, leaders should be able to adapt their leadership styles as well as behavior to suit these situations. Political settings present a situational change in the case where a new party becomes the ruling party (Milakovich & Gordon, 2009). This necessitates the leader to be able to adapt to the demands of a Democratic rule in one case and adapt to the demands of a Republican rule in the other. Additionally, under a political setting, the issue of decreasing employee morale has been raised. This presents a situation where the employees expect a leader to conform to their characteristics
A covenantal perspective, in this case, presupposes that a leader should take keen consideration of the relationship with the employees as presented within the principle of hesed. This principle translates to loving fulfillment of covenant obligation (Fischer, 2010). The covenant in the case of public administrators is the fulfillment of service delivery. In fulfilling this obligation, leaders in public administration organization should be able to ensure that with regards to the challenges mentioned, they still manage to deliver the services as owed to the public. The leader should also be accountable to the employees and the public at large.
Organization Behavior
The covenantal idea with regard to organizational behavior presents a coalescing theme by virtue of the three principles of hesed, mutual accountability and federalism (Fischer, 2010). To begin with, the idea of hesed provides an attitude that is fundamental to the growth of healthy organization behaviour. The attitude is one which focuses on, among other things, servant leadership, mutual affirmation, teamwork, community service and shared vision (Fischer & Schulz, 2016). This principle advocate for the self-awareness of the organization. This is to mean that the employees should be cognizant of the broader goals of the organization, the challenges facing the organization and the strategies that are extant for the working of the organization in light of the challenges (Pittman, 2009). This attitude will be fundamental for countering the challenge of the political setting and contracting. This is because, if employees are aware that the organization should conform to the organization in power, then they should be able to adjust to the needs of the new political setting by the employment of a shared version.
Mutual accountability forms the basis from which all the organizational processes emanate from. It is a principle that seeks to ensure that every party to a covenant is accountable to the other. In this regard, therefore, an issue of transparency arises where the public administrators are expected to be transparent to the public and account for each of their actions. The actualization of this principle requires the cooperation of the service providers, in this case, the public administrators, and the recipients, the public (Fischer & Schulz, 2016). Cooperation should also include knowledge sharing, and this begs the question of whether the public should be made aware of the matters that are confidential to the public in fulfilling this principle.
Federalism is the principle that provides for healthy organization by virtue of an existing structure. The ideas posited by this principle include noncentralization as well as boundaryless organization. It is without a doubt that the Democrats will not favor this principle and as such, it is a recipe for disaster. However, Fischer states that the idea behind this principle is the sharing of power between all the parties that are involved in a covenant (Fischer & Schulz, 2016). The issue of social equity is of significant concern with respect to this principle. This is because this issue seeks to include minorities in the decision-making process in organizations. This principle will, therefore, advocate for the inclusion and correspondingly ensure a solution to conflicts which are common in such instances. Additionally, dialogue between public administrators with the public will also serve to ensure that the former includes the latter in the decision-making processes.
Conclusion
Statesmanship requires a combination of critical elements, including behaviors, traits, personal characteristics, ethics and moral obligations. Idealizing the concept of statesmanship will not only ensure good leadership, but it will also ensure proper management of public affairs. Cultivating leaders with the element of statesmanship will be instrumental towards the management of the public administration organizations in the wake of the current challenges. This means that the schools of public administration and political science should endeavor to educate the students on the critical concepts of statesmanship to normalize excellent leadership at polity levels. Primarily, Fischer’s covenantal models of statesmanship, leadership and organizational behavior are fundamental precepts that should also be exhausted when addressing the issues at the public administration organizations.
References
Alberti, A., Klareskov, V., & United Nations. (2006). Innovations in governance and public administration: Replicating what works. New York: United Nations.
Albu, O. B., & Flyverbom, M. (2016). Organizational Transparency: Conceptualizations, Conditions, and Consequences. Business & Society, 58(2), 268–297. doi: 10.1177/0007650316659851
Bernardete, S. (1992). The Plan of the Statesman. Mètis. Anthropologie Des Mondes Grecs Anciens, 7(1), 25–47. doi: 10.3406/metis.1992.976
Bevir, M. (2007). Encyclopedia of governance: I. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2009). Public administration: An action orientation. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Douglas, S., & Meijer, A. (2016). Transparency and Public Value—Analyzing the Transparency Practices and Value Creation of Public Utilities. International Journal of Public Administration, 39(12), 940–951. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2015.1064133
Farazmand, A. (2007). Strategic public personnel administration: Building and managing human capital for the 21st century. Westport, Conn: Praeger.
Fischer, K. J., & Schultz, J. (2016). How Does a Covenantal Approach to Developing Organizational Leadership Affect Innovation? Journal of Leadership Studies, 10(1), 53–54. doi: 10.1002/jls.21444
Henry, N. (2017). Paradigms of Public Administration. Public Administration and Public Affairs, 35–53. doi: 10.4324/9781315530536-3
Hijal-Moghrabi, I., & Sabharwal, M. (2018). Ethics in American Public Administration: A Response to a Changing Reality. Public Integrity, 20(5), 459–477. doi: 10.1080/10999922.2017.1419053
Huberts, L. W., Maesschalck, J., Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Rohr, J. A. (2008). Ethics and integrity of governance: Perspectives across frontiers. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Khagram, S., Fung, A., & De, R. P. (2013). Open Budgets: The Political Economy of Transparency, Participation, and Accountability. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
Khan, H. A. (2018). Globalization and the challenges of public administration: Governance, human resources management, leadership, ethics, e-Governance and sustainability in the 21st Century.
Lewis, C. W., & Gilman, S. (2012). The ethics challenge in public service: A problem-solving guide.
Mabillard, V., & Zumofen, R. (2016). The complex relationship between transparency and accountability: A synthesis and contribution to existing frameworks. Public Policy and Administration, 32(2), 110–129. doi: 10.1177/0952076716653651
Milakovich, M. E., & Gordon, G. J. (2009). Public administration in America. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Newell, T. (2012). Statesmanship, Character, and Leadership in America. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Overeem, P., & Bakker, F. E. (2019). Statesmanship Beyond the Modern State. Perspectives on Political Science, 48(1), 46–55. doi: 10.1080/10457097.2016.1229563
Pittman, J. E. (2009). 21st century issues in America: An introduction to public administration theory and practice. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.
Platón, ., & In Ostwald, M. (1992). Plato’s Statesman. Indianapolis [etc: Hackett Publishing.
Winston Churchill: Studies in Statesmanship. (n.d.). The SHAFR Guide Online. doi: 10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim130080123