Managing Guerilla Government

Managing Guerilla Government

            Guerilla government is a term used by O’Leary to describe impeccable actions of public servants working against set wishes in an organization. These civil servants might be either working explicitly or implicitly based on the communication of their superiors.

Moreover, guerilla government is a decent form typically practiced by dissatisfied individuals based on various actions of programs, public organizations, or people who choose not to present their concerns publicly. The primary issue identified by O’Leary is the unethical use of federal funds and inferior general implementation methods based on legal policies. An example of public resource misuse is whereby taxpayer’s money is misused on activities that are not aimed at bringing forth development. Many members are observed to retaliate towards staff members disagreeing with some choices made for administrators. However, members who disagree with administrators receive unethical gestures based on their opinions (Canon 45). John Spencer is a character who made worse decisions while still in office. John misused public funds through the continuous use of federal funds to implement inappropriate actions.

John bought EPA membership within the Chambers of Commerce by using public funds (O’Leary 48). Another issue or theory gets explained whereby members of this particular organization supported wrong decisions or actions by refusing to follow the law. The other ethically-based effect gets seen in the way individual administrators operated and handled confidential information. The information managed was sensitive, and it never meant to be shared; however, these administrators shared the news. Moreover, the EPA case had some weight in it and required proper measures taken to correct any wrongdoing. The leading political theory seen in these cases gets focused on how political appointee’s faced constant frustrations when raising issues—mistrust existence as a consequence of continuous rejection from superiors. Members had issues concerned with trust brought about by how administrators handled policies and social classes within the organization.

Spencer was in charge of handling funds and often spent on expensive holidays and had personal trips by using public funds (O’Leary 78). This action made it hard for employees to trust each other, and they began to question the organization; thus, they believed the organization did not set proper standards. Spencer made other contractual agreements with private sectors. These agreements were viewed to be made outside the organization since they benefited Spencer alone. Spencer never explained how he managed to get these contracts with private agencies.

Furthermore, O’Leary explained more about other guerillas who included; Mark Felt and Chiune Sugihara, who was a Japanese diplomat based in Lithuania. Mr. Chiune went against the policies set by the Japanese government and gave out over ten thousand visas to Jews. The permits made it possible for the Jews to escape a deadly Holocaust. Most of O’Leary’s categories of guerillas are faceless and nameless civil servants. However, more bureaucratic guerillas still exist, and the existence of guerilla warfare against the bureaucratic based trenches is ordinary. A guerilla government exists all the time, often in a mundane world of bureaucratic models. Often superiors fail to be corrected by guerillas whereby they are left to fall. Some acts are seen where secret links get formed with nongovernmental types of organizations. These guerilla governments manifest themselves as ghostwriters of testimonies and letters for the group’s f interest.

Furthermore, guerillas’ repertoire includes familiar tactics like; going over superior’s, filing lawsuits, obeying superiors in public, but disrespecting them in private, forging links with nongovernmental and citizen-based organizations. As put clearly by O’Leary that all guerilla activities are not equally created, she states clearly a scenario where a guerilla had battles with the superiors. The struggle began when a specific consultant did not reimburse a $5 hamburger, and the guerilla went ahead to wage war towards the client and demanded the superior to get fired. Similarly, O’Leary’s most cases get focused on pressing issues revolving around policy differences, questioning fairness, and law interpretation. She goes ahead to report on obtained results from a survey that suggested members from the National Academy of Public Administrations almost collectively agreed on the fact that dissent if adequately managed, was only not essential but decisive to an organization (O’Leary 104).

Furthermore, O’Leary had major conclusions and findings that were grounded based on the cases presented from her writings. She went ahead to explain that; guerilla governments were there to stay, guerillas can act in ways that individuals won’t realize. She added that all guerilla activities are, however, not equally created, the majority of public organizations lack an adequate equipping to deal with guerilla governments, and tensions created by guerilla governments will never get resolved. Reviewing the case of Spenser, career employees got overly concerned based on the ongoing situation at the organization. The employee’s utilized guerilla tactics to effectively curb the unethical issue seen despite risking their careers. The first issue observed was political misuse of position to gain personal benefits. Moreover, the present administration had no respect for its employees and never valued the presented ideas. All employees had an obligation to seek ways that could express their dissatisfaction.

Various employee’s actions influenced different policies. The employees came up with multiple alternatives and unique methods of expressing the dissatisfaction (Frederickson & Ghere 56). However, a guerilla tactic might lead to massive complications. Administrations have this particular problem when handling guerillas. The action of employees affected public policies, as shown in the case. One primary lesson learnt from this specific case is that a working alliance can get built within any organization despite having disagreements. Strong collaboration and cooperation could help in solving employee problems.

Another lesson learned is that staff members can have huge effects on public policy. Therefore, all employees should receive equal treatment. Equal treatment generates a proper solution that solves problems experienced by employees. When attention gets shifted towards ethics aimed at guerilla actions, this tactic could get subjected to the administration when employees witness unresolved issues within the organization.

The findings and conclusions observed by O’Leary were further discussed based on their pros. She advised that individuals or organizations should; 1. Come up with an organizational structure that welcomes, accepts, and significantly encourages debates and candid dialogues. 2. Listen. 3. Understanding informal and formal organizations; 4. People should get separated from problems; 5. Creation of multiple channels based on dissent; 6. Nature of dissent-based boundaries. Based on O’Leary’s survey focused on these pros, she advocated on one piece of advice, which is profound and simple. She claimed that with discretion, there comes a form of accountability in every aspect. However, Rosemary O’Leary explained that liability is all about dissent management in agencies and having responsibility for bureaucrats in an agency that showcases guerillas.

Work cited

Frederickson, H. George, and Richard K. Ghere. Ethics in public management. Routledge, 2014.

O’Leary, Rosemary. The ethics of dissent: Managing guerrilla government. Cq Press, 2019.