publicperformance &managementreviewjames r. thompson and shelley l. fulla 155 a partnership for...

PUBLIC PERFORMANCE& MANAGEMENT REVIEW

EDITORIAL BOARDDavid Ammons, University of North Carolina at

Chapel HillWalter L. Balk, SUNY AlbanyEvan Berman, University of Central FloridaGeert Bouckaert, Catholic University of Leuven,

BelgiumBarry Bozeman, Georgia Technological InstituteWilla Bruce, University of Illinois at SpringfieldKathe Callahan, Rutgers University, Newark CampusSharon Caulder, Government Accounting OfficeGlen Hahn Cope, University of Illinois at SpringfieldPatria deLancer Julnes, Utah State UniversityRobert Denhardt, Arizona State UniversitySheldon Edner, U.S. Department of TransportationDonald M. Fisk, Bureau of Labor StatisticsGeorge Frederickson, University of KansasVatche Gabrielian, Yerevan State University–ArmeniaGerald Gabris, Northern Illinois UniversityJerry A. Gianakis, University of Central FloridaNicholas Gianatassio, University of North Carolina,

PembrokeChristine Gibbs, Red Tape, Ltd.Mary Guy, Florida State UniversityArie Halachmi, Institute of Government, Tennessee

State UniversityRalph Hambrick, Virginia Commonwealth UniversityHarry P. Hatry, The Urban InstituteSteve Hays, University of South CarolinaGary Helfand, University of HawaiiCandace Hetzner, Lesley CollegeW. Bartley Hildreth, Wichita State UniversityAl Hyde, The Brookings InstitutionVan Johnston, University of DenverKevin Kearns, University of Pittsburgh

Rita Mae Kelly, University of Texas at DallasRosslyn S. Kleeman, The George Washington

UniversityEleanor Laudicina, Kean College of New JerseyPavel Makeyenko, Russian Academy of SciencesRobert P. McGowan, University of DenverChris McKenna, Pennsylvania State UniversityLinda McNish, National Center for Health StatisticsGerald J. Miller, Rutgers University, Newark CampusJohn Nalbandian, University of KansasMeredith Newman, Washington State UniversityRonald Nyhan, Florida Atlantic UniversityRosemary O’Leary, Syracuse UniversitySteven Ott, University of UtahSusan Paddock, University of WisconsinTheodore H. Poister, Georgia State UniversityJack Rabin, Pennsylvania State UniversityJeffrey Raffel, University of DelawareHal G. Rainey, University of GeorgiaWilbur C. Rich, Wellesley CollegeBruce Rocheleau, Northern Illinois UniversityDavid Rosenbloom, American UniversityIrene Rubin, Northern Illinois UniversityErwin Schwella, University of Stellenbosch,

South AfricaNancy Soper, U.S. Air Force Research LaboratoryJohn M. Stevens, Pennsylvania State UniversityMontgomery Van Wart, Texas Tech UniversityThomos Vocino, Auburn University at MontgomeryVera Vogelsang-Coombs, Cleveland State UniversityCharles Washington, Florida Atlantic UniversityBart Wechsler, University of MissouriHarvey White, University of PittsburghEthel Williams, University of NebraskaBlue Wooldridge, Virginia Commonwealth University

Cosponsored by The Section on Public Performance and Management of the American Society for Public Ad-ministration and The National Center for Public Productivity, Rutgers University, Campus at Newark andThe American Academy of Certified Public Managers

For Sage Publications: Yvette Pollastrini, Matthew H. Adams, Nancy Morgan Barnes, and Paul Doebler

EDITORMarc Holzer

National Center for Public ProductivityGraduate Department of Public Administration

Rutgers University, Newark Campus

MANAGING EDITORRobert Cunningham

Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Tennessee

BOOK REVIEW EDITORMaria P. Aristegueta

School of Urban and Public PolicyUniversity of Delaware

CASE STUDY EDITORDorothy Olshfski



ASSISTANT EDITORMenzhong Zhang




Volume 25, Number 2 / December 2001

Volume 25, Number 2 December 2001

CONTENTS

Abstracts 153

Effecting Change in a Reform Context: The NationalPerformance Review and the Contingencies of“Microlevel” Reform Implementation

James R. Thompson and Shelley L. Fulla 155

A Partnership for Strategic Planning and Managementin a Public Organization

Carrie G. Donald, Thomas S. Lyons,and Rebecca C. Tribbey 176

Enabling the Cream to Rise to the Top: A Cross-JurisdictionalComparison of Competencies for Senior Managersin the Public Sector

Gambhir Bhatta 194

Ethical Perspectives on Employee Participation in PlannedOrganizational Change: A Survey of Two State PublicWelfare Agencies

John G. Bruhn, Gary Zajac, and Ali A. Al-Kazemi 208

Case and Comments

Who Pays? Who Decides?Gerald J. Miller and G.L.A. Harris 229

What’s Wrong and What Should Be Done?Comments on the Case Study

Dennis E. Gale, Jerry A. Gianakis, Irene Rubin,Doris Martin, and Sheldon Presser 231

Book Review Symposium

The Language of Public Administration: Bureaucracy,Modernity, and Postmodernity,by David John Farmer

Reviewed by Richard C. Box, Louis F. Weschler,and Cheryl Simrell King 239


Book Reviews

Buses, Trains, and Automobiles: Facing the Challengesof Urban Transportation

Essays in Transportation Economics and Policy:A Handbook in Honor of John R. Meyer,

edited by Jose Gomez-Ibanez, William B. Tye,and Clifford Winston

Alternate Route: Toward Efficient Urban Transportation,by Clifford Winston and Chad Shirley

Transportation for Livable Cities,by Vukan R. Vuchic

Reviewed by David J. Houston 251

On Learning and GovernanceBeyond the Learning Organization: Paths ofOrganizational Learning in the East German Context,

by Mike GeppertGovernance Through Social Learning,

by Gilles PaquetRenewing Governance: Governingby Learning in the Information Age,

by Steven A. RosellReviewed by Kaifeng Yang 256

Sage Publications Thousand Oaks • London • New Delhi

PUBLIC PERFORMANCE & MANAGEMENT REVIEW seeks articles from practitioners and academiciansalike on a broad range of topics in public administration and public management, as well as proposals for featured topics(groupings of three to five articles on a particular subject). The journal encompasses all administrative, technical, legal,economic, social, and political factors influencing the productivity of public and nonprofit organizations and agencies.Its objectives are to facilitate the development of innovative techniques and encourage a wider application of thosealready proven; stimulate research and critical thinking about the applicability to the public sector of lessons from theprivate sector and vice versa; present integrated analyses of theories, concepts, strategies, and techniques dealing withproductivity and related questions of measurement, labor relations, capital investment, human capital, efficiency andeffectiveness, organizational goals, and legal, political, and technological constraints or concerns; establish a per-sistent and recurring impetus for productivity improvement at all levels of government and across the full rangeof public sector functions; provide a forum for practitioner-academician exchange; and draw together cita-tions to the literature.

MANUSCRIPTS (five copies), proposals, and correspondence should be submitted to Marc Holzer, Editor-in-Chief, Graduate Department of Public Administration, Rutgers University, 7th Floor, Hill Hall, 360 KingBlvd., Newark, NJ 07102. Articles for review should be sent via an e-mail attachment to RobertCunningham, Managing Editor: [email protected]. The manuscript should conform to the PublicationManual of the American Psychological Association (4th edition) and should be double-spaced, with notes, ref-erences, tables, and figures on separate pages. Please include a 100-word abstract and a short biographical state-ment. Submission of a manuscript implies commitment to publish in the journal. Authors submitting manu-scripts to the journal should not simultaneously submit them to another journal, nor should manuscripts havebeen published elsewhere in substantially similar form or with substantially similar content. Authors indoubt about what constitutes prior publication should consult the editor (e-mail: [email protected]. edu).

PUBLIC PERFORMANCE & MANAGEMENT REVIEW (ISSN 1530-9576) is published four times annu-ally—in September, December, March, and June—by Sage Publications, 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA91320. Copyright © 2001 by Sage Publications. All rights reserved. No portion of the contents may be repro-duced in any form without written permission of the publisher.

Subscriptions: Annual subscription rates for institutions and individuals are based on the current frequency. Pricesquoted are in U.S. dollars and are subject to change without notice. Canadian subscribers add 7% GST (and HST asappropriate). Outside U.S. subscription rates include shipping via air-speeded delivery. Institutions: $285 (withinthe U.S.) / $301 (outside the U.S.) / single issue: $83 (worldwide). Individuals: $72 (within the U.S.) / $88 (outsidethe U.S.) / single issue: $29 (worldwide). Orders with ship-to addresses in the U.K., Europe, the Middle East, andAfrica should be sent to the London address (below). Orders with ship-to addresses in India and South Asiashould be sent to the New Delhi address (below). Noninstitutional orders must be paid by personal check, VISA, orMasterCard.

PUBLIC PERFORMANCE & MANAGEMENT REVIEW is indexed or abstracted in ABI/INFORM &Business Periodicals, Academic Search, Business Source, Corporate ResourceNET, CRN: Business &Industry, Current Citations Express, MasterFILE FullTEXT, Personnel Management Abstracts, StandardPeriodical Directory (SPD), TOPICsearch, Urban Affairs Abstracts, Wilson Book Review Digest, andWilson OmniFile V.

Back Issues: Information about availability and prices of back issues may be obtained from the publisher’s orderdepartment (address below). Single-issue orders for 5 or more copies will receive a special adoption discount.Contact the order department for details. Write to the London office for sterling prices.

Inquiries: All subscription inquiries, orders, and renewals for journals published by Sage Periodicals Press with ship-toaddresses in North America, South America, Australia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, and thePhilippines must be addressed to Sage Publications, 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320, U.S.A.; tele-phone (800) 818-SAGE (7243) and (805) 499-0721; fax (805) 499-0871; e-mail [email protected];http://www.sagepub.com. All subscription inquiries, orders, and renewals with ship-to addresses in the U.K.,Europe, the Middle East, and Africa must be addressed to Sage Publications Ltd, 6 Bonhill Street, LondonEC2A 4PU, England, +44 (0)20 7374 0645, fax +44 (0)20 7374 8741. All subscription inquiries, orders,and renewals with ship-to addresses in India and South Asia must be addressed to Sage Publications PrivateLtd, P.O. Box 4215, New Delhi 110 048 India, telephone (91-11) 641-9884, fax (91-11) 647-2426. Address allpermissions requests to the Thousand Oaks office.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, isgranted by Sage Publications for libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC)Transactional Reporting Service, provided that the base fee of 50¢ per copy, plus 10¢ per copy page, is paid directlyto CCC, 21 Congress St., Salem, MA 01970. 1530-9576/2001 $.50 +.10.

Advertising: Current rates and specifications may be obtained by writing to the Advertising Manager at theThousand Oaks office (address above).

Claims: Claims for undelivered copies must be made no later than six months following month of publication. Thepublisher will supply missing copies when losses have been sustained in transit and when the reserve stock willpermit.

Change of Address: Six weeks’advance notice must be given when notifying of change of address. Please send oldaddress along with the new address to ensure proper identification. Please specify name of journal. POSTMASTER:Send address changes to Public Performance & Management Review, c/o 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320.

Printed on acid-free, recycled paper

PPMR / December 2001ABSTRACTS

ABSTRACTS

Effecting Change in a Reform Context: The National Performance Review andthe Contingencies of “Microlevel” Reform Implementation—James R.Thompson and Shelley Fulla

The administrative prescriptions promoted by the National Performance Reviewwere targeted toward intra-agency organizational elements such as work processes,group structures, culture, and job scope. The traditional, top-down implementationstrategy employed was not well suited, however, to this set of “microlevel” prescrip-tions. Despite the various executive orders and directives that were issued, there was ahigh degree of variation across agencies in the extent to which the various prescrip-tions were adopted. This study finds that this variation was attributable to both agencyattributes and elements of agency context. A conclusion is that top-level policy makersseeking microlevel change need to take an enabling rather than a directive approach toimplementation.

A Partnership for Strategic Planning and Management in a Public Organiza-tion—Carrie G. Donald, Thomas S. Lyons, and Rebecca C. Tribbey

The basis of cooperation between labor and management is a recognition of mutualinterests. Partnerships take cooperation a step further by reassigning decision-makingpower. To examine what factors lend themselves to lasting labor-management partner-ships, the authors conducted a case study of a partnership program in a public utilitycompany. Labor and management undertook a joint effort to form a strategic plan. Theforemost benefit was the creation of joint goals reached by consensus. Labor and man-agement both had a stake in the plan and its success. Now, in each division of the com-pany, an effort is being made to share decision-making authority. In a time when publicsector agencies and companies are increasingly in competition with the private sector,workplaces where employees are active participants in guiding the organization willbe essential to achieving and maintaining quality and a customer service–oriented out-look. The challenge is to identify a sustainable method of labor-management coopera-tion. Joint strategic planning is a promising answer.

Enabling the Cream to Rise to the Top: A Cross-Jurisdictional Comparison ofCompetencies for Senior Managers in the Public Sector—Gambhir Bhatta

The use of competencies to identify and target leaders in organizations has pickedup steam in the past decade or so. Drawing from the private sector, the public sectors ofseveral advanced countries have comprehensively employed the competencyapproach within their own governance and management systems. This article looks atthe employment of competencies in the senior public services of five jurisdictions andconcludes that cross-jurisdictional similarity is evident only on “vision and strategy,”

153

although people-related skills also appear as core competencies for senior managers.The article also argues that further research is necessary to understand why competen-cies in use in the senior public services differ so markedly from those in other organiza-tions and settings.

Ethical Perspectives on Employee Participation in Planned OrganizationalChange: A Survey of Two State Public Welfare Agencies—John G. Bruhn,Gary Zajac, and Ali A. Al-Kazemi

This article reports on a survey of state public welfare executives and local welfareemployees in two states and explores respondents’ views about participation inplanned organizational change and about involving employees in planning and theresulting benefits and problems. Respondents in both states were not satisfied with theextent of their participation in planned organizational change within their agencies.Respondents in both states believed that employees should be permitted to participateto a greater extent in planned organizational change, especially in implementingchange. Respondents were concerned, however, that participation might raise unreal-istic employee expectations and that dissension, fragmentation, and cynicism mightresult from frustrated expectations.

154 PPMR / December 2001

PPMR / December 2001Thompson, Fulla / EFFECTING CHANGE IN A REFORM CONTEXT

EFFECTING CHANGEIN A REFORM CONTEXT

The National Performance Review andthe Contingencies of “Microlevel”

Reform Implementation

JAMES R. THOMPSONSHELLEY L. FULLA

University of Illinois, Chicago

Although the breadth and diversity of the objectives set by the sponsors of theNational Performance Review (NPR) preclude any definitive assessment of its out-comes, observers have generally concluded that President Clinton’s managementreform initiative had mixed results. Thompson (2000) concluded that lower orderobjectives related to downsizing and budgetary savings were achieved but that higherorder objectives related to culture change and quality of service were not. Kettl (1998)gave NPR an overall grade of B, noting successes such as procurement reform as wellas shortcomings such as “relations with Congress.”

Kettl (1998) further noted wide disparity in the impact of NPR across the govern-ment. Some agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, effectedsignificant improvements pursuant to NPR recommendations, whereas others, such asthe Internal Revenue Service, were failures. The differential impact of NPR is alsoapparent from a U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1998) survey in which the pro-portion of employees responding affirmatively to the statement, “My organization hasmade the goals of the National Performance Review a priority,” ranged from a high of62% in the General Services Administration to a low of 19% in the Air Force. Thomp-son (2000) hypothesized that various contextual variables such as leadership and crisismay account for these disparities.

This study further investigates the reasons for the differential impact of NPR acrossthe government. The explanation offered focuses on the process by which the coreNPR “prescriptions” were implemented. In the first section, a distinction is madebetween microlevel and macrolevel prescriptions. Microlevel prescriptions are thosethat address intraorganizational elements such as work processes, group structures,culture, and job scope. Macrolevel prescriptions are those that affect inter-agency andinterbranch relations. It is hypothesized that microlevel prescriptions entail a differentimplementation dynamic than do macrolevel prescriptions.

Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, December 2001 155-175© 2001 Sage Publications

155

In the second section, case studies of NPR implementation in three enforcementand regulatory agencies are presented, and differences in the degree to which NPR pre-scriptions were adopted are identified. In the third section, the factors that account forthese differences are examined. The Discussion references similar groups of factorsidentified in prior studies of total quality management (TQM), which, like NPR, tar-gets microlevel organizational elements.

The NPR as Administrative Reform

A number of features served to distinguish the NPR from preceding attempts atreform of the federal executive branch, including its longevity, its multifaceted nature,and the participation of rank-and-file employees in its formulation. Perhaps the mostdistinctive feature of the reform program was the focus on what Arnold (1998)described as the “micro-context” of reform. Whereas previous attempts at reorganiza-tion of the executive branch were oriented toward “regime level administrative/politi-cal issues,” with NPR, attention was directed toward agency-level structures, pro-cesses, and belief systems.

The intra-agency focus of NPR was reflective of the body of modern managementthought on which the reinvention movement is founded, elements of which includeorganization development (Bennis, 1966; Likert, 1961, 1967), quality of work life andwork redesign (Walton, 1974; Hackman & Oldham, 1980), process reengineering(Hammer, 1990), and total quality management (Deming, 1986). Common to thesedifferent sets of ideas is an assumption that organizational effectiveness can beenhanced through interventions at the group and work process levels. Such ideas standin stark contrast with the broad, macrolevel, structural prescriptions that constitutedthe core elements of prior reforms.1

NPR ADMINISTRATIVE PRESCRIPTIONS

Arnold’s (1998) argument that the core elements of NPR address microlevel orga-nizational issues warrants empirical verification. The Report of the National Perfor-mance Review (U.S. NPR, 1993a) was reviewed for purposes of identifying the keyadministrative prescriptions contained therein.2 A list of those prescriptions is shownin Table 1.3

The prescriptions lend themselves to four separate groupings as shown in Table 1.Each is further categorized as microlevel or macrolevel based on whether it is directedat intra-agency structures and processes or broader institutional arrangements. Theprescriptions in the first group derive from a body of management thought, a tenet ofwhich is that the traditional bureaucratic model is obsolete. These prescriptions, exclu-sively microlevel in orientation, are associated with the ideas of many modern man-agement theorists, some of whom are cited in the report. Thus Deming (1986), one ofthe originators of total quality management ideas, emphasized the importance ofinvolving employees in the design of new work practices.4 He also endorsed the use ofteams and made work processes an organizational focus. Kanter (1983), among others,argued the importance of structural fluidity as a means of inducing both employeecommitment and innovation. Hammer (1990) was a proponent of process


Table 1. National Performance Review Prescriptions by Level Targeted and Implementation Vehicle

Level Targeted Implementation Vehicle

Macrolevel Microlevel Executive No(Regime) (Agency) Law Order Other Action

Alternative models of organizingA1. Reduce supervisor-employee ratio/expand use of teaming x xA2. Reduce hierarchical layers x xA3. Coordinate service delivery across units/“one-stop shop” x xA4. Involve employees in the design of new work practices x xA5. Reengineer work processes with application of information technology x xA6. Invest in employees as strategic assets x xA7. Share managerial authority with employee unions (partnership) x xA8. Engender a culture that rewards innovative behavior x xA9. Engender a culture that places a priority on high-quality service to “customers” x xA10. Develop electronic means of service delivery x xA11. Implement compensation systems in which a significant portion of pay is placed “at risk” according to

performance criteria x xA12. Shift emphasis in regulatory units away from an enforcement mentality toward one of voluntary compliance x xA13. Encourage midlevel managers to experiment with new forms of service delivery x x

Introduce market-like mechanismsB1. Eliminate service monopolies/competitive provision of administrative services x xB2. Establish customer and employee satisfaction as strategic priorities x xB3. Contract out noncore agency functions x xB4. Contract out core agency functions x xB5. Convert agencies to alternative forms (government corporations, employee stock-ownership plans) x xB7. Develop mechanisms whereby citizens/clients can hold agencies accountable for service quality x x157

(continued)

Inter-/Intra-agency shifts in power/authorityC1. Delegate authority over expenditures to the lowest feasible operational level x xC2. Eliminate full-time equivalent controls at the agency and subagency levels x xC3. Delegate key personnel authorities to the lowest feasible operational level x xC4. Delegation by the Office of Personnel Management to agencies of key human resource functions x xC5. Reduce the proportion of personnel performing control functions x xC6. Increase flexibility for line management in the procurement of goods and services x xC7. Separate the service and enforcement function of central staff units x xC8. Use performance measures as a primary means of intra-agency accountability x x

Interbranch, Interjurisdictional shifts in power/authorityD1. Authorize agencies to retain a portion of unspent funds x xD2. Grant agencies the authority to create agency-specific classification and compensation systems x xD3. Replace ex ante (procedural) with ex post (audit) enforcement mechanisms x xD4. Make management expertise a criteria for appointment to top management positions x xD5. Use performance measures as a primary means of external accountability x xD6. Create performance-based organizations whereby agency heads are held accountable for performance

and provided administrative flexibility x xD7. Reduce the total number of federal employees x xD8. Devolve functions to state and local jurisdictions x x

Table 1 Continued

Level Targeted Implementation Vehicle

Macrolevel Microlevel Executive No(Regime) (Agency) Law Order Other Action

158

reengineering as well as the broadening of job scope and the use of teams. Peters(1989) prescribed the reduction in managerial layers as a means of improving organi-zational performance.

The second group of prescriptions promote the application of market-like mecha-nisms to government. These ideas derive from public choice theory as well as the pri-vatization movement and lead to recommendations such as the elimination of servicemonopolies and the contracting out of services (Savas, 1982; Self, 1993). Prescrip-tions in the third group relate to inter- and intra-agency shifts in power and authorityconsistent with NPR’s decentralizing thrust. The last group includes prescriptions thathave direct implications for the relative power of Congress and the president over man-agement matters. The prescriptions in this group are all macrolevel in nature. Despitethe macrolevel prescriptions incorporated, the conclusion here, consistent with Arnold(1998), is that NPR is predominantly microlevel in orientation. Not only do a majorityof the component prescriptions fall in that category, but the underlying theoretical pre-cepts have that focus.

The microlevel character of NPR is important for understanding the implementa-tion problems that were encountered. Macrolevel, regime-level prescriptions are of ascope that requires legislation and accompanying implementation mechanisms.Microlevel prescriptions such as teaming, in contrast, are not well suited to top-downimposition. The implementation of this type of change requires attention to a numberof agency-specific, contextual factors such as organizational mission, culture, technol-ogy, history, and leadership capacity. Effective implementation, hence, requires theexercise of extensive discretion at the point of application.

Despite the liabilities of the top-down approach to implementation, the Clintonadministration relied on executive orders to implement most microlevel changes (seeTable 1).5 For example, as a means of effectuating a 1:15 ratio of supervisors toemployees, an executive order was issued directing agencies to develop streamliningplans. According to the directive,

Each executive department’s and agency’s plans should address, among other things, themeans by which it will reduce the ratio of managers and supervisors to other personnel,with a goal of reducing the percentage who are supervisors or managers in halving thecurrent ratio within 5 years. (Clinton, 1993a, para. 3)

Another executive order directed each agency to “eliminate not less than 50% of itscivilian internal management regulations that are not required by law within 3 years ofthe effective date of this order” (Clinton, 1993b, section 1).

Such directives were generally so loosely formulated and poorly enforced as tohave little impact. Many agencies complied with the supervisor:employee ratio direc-tive by changing the job titles of supervisors to “team leader” and others that entailedquasi-supervisory functions but did not technically qualify as supervisory (U.S. Gen-eral Accounting Office, 1996, 1999). Similarly, officials at some agencies compliedwith the directive to reduce internal regulations by eliminating from regulations lan-guage that was duplicative of the law or another section of the regulations rather thanby cutting the substantive content. Agencies were thus often able to achieve technicalcompliance while ignoring the underlying intent of the directive.

Thompson, Fulla / EFFECTING CHANGE IN A REFORM CONTEXT 159

No specific directives were issued with regard to many of the prescriptions. Forexample, the NPR report called for the reengineering of work processes as a means ofcutting costs and improving service, and reengineering projects were undertaken in anumber of agencies. However, there was no systematic effort to follow up on this rec-ommendation. Whether and to what extent reengineering occurred was largely a con-sequence of the interest and attitudes of agency management.

The thesis of this discussion is that a fundamental defect with the implementationstrategy employed by the Clinton administration was a failure to recognize that themicrolevel prescriptions that constituted the core of its reform program were not wellsuited to implementation via traditional, top-down approaches. By virtue of the factthat they applied at subsidiary levels and that their application required considerationof multiple contextual factors, alternative means of implementation were required.

The inadequacy of traditional means of implementation presents a dilemma forexecutive-level officials, however. If, as much of modern management doctrine pre-scribes, the key to improved performance lies in changes in core organizational ele-ments but such interventions are not well suited to top-down implementation, how canagencies be induced to adopt the changes, and how can operational improvements beachieved? To investigate these questions, studies of the implementation dynamics atthree federal agencies were undertaken.

Reinvention in Three Agencies

For purposes of better understanding the dynamics by which microlevel adminis-trative prescriptions are implemented, case studies of NPR implementation at threefederal agencies were conducted.6 The three agencies selected, the Internal RevenueService (IRS), the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), and theImmigration and Naturalization Service (INS), are all “enforcement and regulatory”(Sparrow, 1994) in nature. Enforcement and regulatory agencies were made a focus ofthe NPR consistent with the emphasis placed on the use of market mechanisms for ser-vice delivery and on involving “customers” in service delivery. The NPR promoted aproactive approach to regulation whereby regulatory units were urged to induce com-pliance through education and improved service rather than through traditional“enforcement” means.7

The three agencies were selected on “maximum variation” criteria (Miles &Huberman, 1994). The intent was to identify cases that provide maximum variation inthe dependent variable, which in this study is the extent of adoption of NPR prescrip-tions. The IRS evidences the highest level of adoption of NPR prescriptions, withOSHA next and INS last. The three agencies were also useful objects of study becauseeach initiated a comprehensive restructuring effort during the period that NPR wasunder way. As part of these efforts, each had to integrate multiple elements into acoherent whole. Furthermore, each prepared one or more formal plans or reports thatprovided a documentary basis for ascertaining the extent of compliance with NPRprescriptions.

Table 2 lists only the microlevel prescriptions from Table 1. These were the onlyprescriptions over which agencies had discretion and, hence, provide a basis for exam-ining variance in adoption practices among agencies. Table 2 indicates whether each



Table 2. The Effectuation of Intraorganizational Prescriptions in Three Regulatory Agencies

Occupational ImmigrationInternal Safety and and Natural-Revenue Health izationService Administration Servicea

Alternative model of organizingA1. Reduction of supervisor-employee ratio/expanded use

of teaming Yes Yes NoA2. Reduction in hierarchical layers Yes No YesA3. Coordination of service delivery across units/

“one-stop shop” Yes No NoA4. Employee involvement in the design of new work

practices Yes Yes NoA5. Reengineering of work processes with application of

information technology Yes No NoA6. Investment in employees as strategic assets Yes No NoA7. Sharing of managerial authority with employee

unions (partnership) Yes Yes NoA8. Engender a culture that rewards innovative behavior Yes No NoA9. Engender a culture that places a priority on high-

quality service to “customers” Yes Yes NoA10. Development of electronic means of service delivery Yes No NoA11. Implementation of compensation systems in which a

significant portion of pay is placed “at risk” accordingto performance criteria Yes No No

A12. A shift in emphasis by regulatory units away from anenforcement mentality toward one of voluntarycompliance Yes Yes No

A13. Encourage midlevel managers to experiment with newforms of service delivery No No No

Introducing market-like mechanismsB1. Elimination of service monopolies/competitive provision

of administrative services No No NoB2. The establishment of customer and employee satisfaction

as strategic priorities Yes Yes NoB3. Contracting out of noncore agency functions No No NoB4. Contracting out of core agency functions No No NoB5. Developing mechanisms whereby citizens/clients can

hold agencies accountable for service quality No No NoInter-/intra-agency shifts in power/authority

C1. The delegation of authority over expenditures to thelowest feasible operational level No No No

C2. The delegation of key personnel authorities to thelowest feasible operational level No No No

C3. A reduction in the proportion of personnel performingcontrol functions No No No

C4. Increased flexibility for line management in theprocurement of goods and services Yes No No

C5. The use of performance measures as a primary meansof intra-agency accountability Yes Yes Yes

a. The Immigration and Naturalization Service Draft Restructuring Proposal (U.S. Department of Justice,1999) included references to “reengineered processes” and a “results driven culture” that “focuses on cus-tomer,” but little along these lines had been accomplished as of early 2001. There have also been tentativeefforts to employ electronic means of service delivery and to partner with unions, but these efforts seem tohave been episodic rather than systematic in nature.

of the three agencies adopted each microlevel prescription. Determinations werebased on both the formal reorganization plans of the agencies as well as on interviewsconducted with both agency and outside officials. A total of 30 interviews with 24 dif-ferent individuals were conducted in the course of this research. Groups and agenciesrepresented among the interviewees included the NPR, the IRS, the INS, and OSHA.Interviewees were selected on the basis of their knowledge of the implementation pro-cesses at the three agencies. The interviews were conducted between 1993 and 2000. Asemistructured interview protocol was employed.

THE IRS

There have been two distinct phases of reinvention at the IRS. Prior to 1997,reinvention efforts centered around the Tax Systems Modernization (TSM) project.TSM was an $8 billion initiative to replace and modernize IRS data systems. In con-junction with systems modernization, the agency attempted to revamp its organiza-tional structure and to change its work processes. TSM ended in 1996 when Congressdramatically reduced funding subsequent to revelations that a number of the systemsbeing developed did not work as intended (Hershey, 1996). Major reviews of TSM andof the IRS were undertaken by the Department of the Treasury, by NPR (U.S. NPR,1998), and by the congressionally sponsored National Commission on Restructuringthe Internal Revenue Service (1997). The findings of these groups led to passage of theIRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA’98) (Act to Amend the Internal Rev-enue Code, 1998), which inaugurated the second phase of reinvention.

The specifics of the second modernization initiative were developed by CharlesRossotti, who was appointed commissioner in late 1997. Rossotti, who headed a man-agement consulting firm prior to joining the IRS, was a strong proponent ofreinvention concepts. In a document titled Modernizing America’s Tax Agency (U.S.IRS, 1999), Rossotti endorsed NPR’s core regulatory reinvention philosophy that reg-ulatory units should rely more on education and service and less on enforcement.Rossotti contended that the agency could more effectively achieve its mission byinvesting resources in prefiling activities such as taxpayer education and assistancethan in postfiling enforcement activities such as auditing and collection.

As shown in Table 2, many of the elements of Rossotti’s change program werehighly congruent with those set forth in the Report of the National PerformanceReview (U.S. NPR, 1993a), including

• a reduction in the number of hierarchical layers from 10 to 5,• extensive involvement of employees in designing new work practices,• partnership with the union representing the largest number of IRS employees,• use of both customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction as primary measures of orga-

nizational effectiveness,• implementation of a broad-banding compensation system to allow pay to be more closely

tied to performance, and• an emphasis on investing in employees as organizational assets through expanded train-

ing opportunities.


With its broad adherence to NPR tenets, the IRS represents one end of the imple-mentation continuum. For reasons to be explored below, neither OSHA nor the INSachieved this level of compliance with NPR dictates.

OSHA

The first head of OSHA under President Clinton, Joseph Dear, was a strong advo-cate of the application of reinvention concepts to his agency. He was selected for theposition in part on the basis of his reputation as an innovator while head of WashingtonState’s Department of Labor and Industries. Soon after the NPR report was issued,Dear brought in a group of consultants to assist an internal group asked to rethink theorganization’s traditional structure and operational practices (Kulick, 1998). Leadersof the union representing the largest number of employees were also members of thedesign team consistent with a partnership arrangement entered into on the part of man-agement (Pitulej, 2000).

OSHA’s organizational structure consists of the national office, 10 regional offices,and 67 area offices. Prior to the redesign, employees in each area office were organizedaccording to OSHA’s major functions: industrial hygiene and occupational safety. Tra-ditionally, activities within each area office were in substantial part driven by com-plaints. When a complaint about an unsafe working condition was received, an officewould send an inspector from either the industrial hygiene or occupational safetygroup to the site. The inspector would conduct a review, identify violations of OSHA’sregulations, issue citations, and levy fines. The productivity of each office wasassessed according to the number of inspections conducted, citations issued, and finesassessed (U.S. OSHA, 1995).

Pursuant to a new approach identified by the design team, industrial hygienists andsafety engineers were to be combined in two teams: a response team and a strategicteam (U.S. OSHA, 1995). The intent was that the response team would respond to day-to-day complaints whereas the strategic team would identify ways to more strategi-cally deploy office resources to impact occupational injury and illness rates (Ostroff,1999). This structure was intended to induce a shift to a more proactive posture andwas accompanied by the development of a new set of outcome measures such as illnessrates and workdays lost to injury according to which the agency now measures its suc-cess (U.S. OSHA, 2000).

Another change was in the process for responding to complaints. Whereas in thepast each complaint had prompted an inspection, under the revised procedures the areaoffice faxes a copy of any complaint to the company in question and gives the company5 days in which to respond and/or correct any violations. The complainant is thenasked to verify compliance (U.S. OSHA, 1997).

Under the revised procedure, inspections are conducted only in the case of the mostegregious violations. The strategic team is to identify patterns of injury and illnessacross industries, types of injuries or illness, and individual companies so that inspec-tion resources could be targeted to have the greatest impact. A key element was to seekpartnerships with firms and other organizations as a means of effecting safety and


hygiene improvements and hence of leveraging the agency’s resources (U.S. OSHA,2000).

The new design is generally coincident with NPR principles. The idea that regula-tory units should move away from an enforcement mentality and toward voluntarycompliance was an underlying tenet of the changes. However, as is apparent in Table 2,a number of the NPR prescriptions were not incorporated in the new design. For exam-ple, there was no attempt to reduce hierarchical layers, allocate additional resourcesfor training purposes, or change the compensation system. And although there hasbeen extensive use of teaming, the supervisor:employee ratio has been reduced onlymarginally.

THE INS

The INS, similar to the IRS and OSHA, initiated a comprehensive effort at organi-zational redesign during the Clinton administration. Unlike the IRS and OSHA, thateffort largely ignored the microlevel prescriptions endorsed by NPR in favor of amacrolevel, structural focus. In part, that focus was a consequence of congressionalproposals to split the service and enforcement functions of the agency and thereby cre-ate two separate and independent agencies. The Clinton administration was opposed tothis idea and in response developed its own Draft Restructuring Proposal (U.S.Department of Justice, 1999), which would have left the agency intact while providingseparate enforcement and service units.

In contrast to Modernizing America’s Tax Agency (U.S. IRS, 1999), or even theOSHA reinvention proposals, the Draft Restructuring Proposal (U.S. Department ofJustice, 1999) was notable for its lack of attention to the microlevel structural and pro-cess issues that served as a focus in the Report of the National Performance Review(U.S. NPR, 1993a). The proposal was almost exclusively devoted to a discussion ofmacrolevel, structural issues, including in particular the split between the enforcementand service functions. In language redolent of the Hoover Commission, the reportcited as a key objective the achievement of “clear accountability” and “clear lines ofauthority.” Little of the material in the report centered on the steps requisite to sustainthe deep cultural and structural change that NPR recommended.

Although the INS restructuring proposal disregarded many of the key ideas thatunderlie NPR, there was an acknowledgement of at least some key NPR concepts.Thus, congruent with the priority given customer service by NPR, the INS proposalwould have created customer service advocates at both the national and local levels “toensure that sufficient attention to customer service occurs in all operations” (U.S.Department of Justice, 1999, p. 8). Furthermore, it would have established customeradvisory panels at the national and area enforcement levels to “institutionalize a forumfor public involvement and to foster better community relationships and cooperation”(p. 8).

The draft proposal would also have reduced the number of hierarchical layers (byone), and attention was given to the necessity of reengineering work processes and cre-ating a results-driven culture. Apparent from the INS’s (1999) Annual PerformancePlan for Fiscal Year 2000 is that the agency is placing increased emphasis on the use of


performance measures for external accountability. The INS has also begun the devel-opment of customer satisfaction measures consistent with NPR dictates.

Even with these gestures toward NPR and associated reforms, the most notable fea-ture of the management developments at the INS is how relatively impervious theagency and its commissioner, Doris Meissner, have been to NPR solicitations between1993 and 2001. As shown in Table 2, only a small number of NPR prescriptions havebeen adopted.

Contingencies for the Adoption ofMicrolevel Organizational Prescriptions

As the three case studies make apparent, there was a high degree of variability in thedegree to which different agencies adopted NPR prescriptions. The IRS was in sub-stantial conformance with NPR dictates, whereas OSHA and INS were less so. In thediscussion that follows, a number of factors that may account for this outcome areidentified. Many correspond to factors that have been hypothesized as consequentialfor TQM interventions.

Two studies relevant in this regard are those of Durant and Wilson (1993) and Radinand Coffee (1993). Although these studies focused on TQM rather than NPR andinvestigated the factors associated with outcomes rather than adoption decisions, thegeneral dynamics are highly similar. As noted above, key elements of NPR derive fromTQM. Both target intra-agency organizational elements. Furthermore, because adop-tion is a necessary precursor to outcomes, factors that explain differences in outcomesshould be highly relevant to differences in the degree of adoption.

The factors identified by Durant and Wilson (1993) and Radin and Coffee (1993)are combined in Table 3 into four broad categories: attributes of the reform program(Reform Program), attributes of the agency head (Individual), agency attributes(Agency), and attributes of the intra-agency implementation process (Intra-AgencyImplementation). The factors that have the most consequence for adoption decisionsare those listed under Individual and Agency. The reform program in this study, theNPR, is not variable. Furthermore, in light of interest here in the determinants of adop-tion, postadoption, intra-agency implementation contingencies are not directly rele-vant. How each of the individual and agency factors shown in Table 3 relate to adoptiondecisions at the IRS, OSHA, and INS is discussed below.

Leadership. Leadership is widely cited as key to the successful adoption and effec-tuation of microlevel reforms. Nadler (1988) commented, “Large-scale organizationalchange appears to require active, dynamic, and visible leadership to help articulate thechange and to capture and mobilize the hearts and minds of the people in the organiza-tion” (p. 77); and Bennis and Nanus (1985) concluded that “effective leadership canmove organizations from current to future states, create visions of potential opportuni-ties for organizations, instill within employees commitment to change and instill newcultures and strategies in organizations that mobilize and focus energy and resources”(p. 9). In their analysis of the correlates of successful TQM intervention, Radin andCoffee (1993) commented, “It is clear that any major change effort requires the skill


Table 3. Total Quality Management (TQM) Contingency Factors

Intra-AgencyAgency Implementation

Political/ Implemen-Reform Individual Policy Policy Technology/ Decision tation

Program Leadership Context Crisis Agenda Size Mission Competency Processes Processes

Critical organizational process:Internal distributiveStatutory precision

Degree of heterogeneity of actorinterests occasioned bypolicy goal(s) x

Ambiguity of statute xNumber/density of contextual goals x

Single/multiattribute problemsLevel where problem choices occur xProblem conceptualization x

Decision parametersPermeability of decision structure xSegmentation of access structures xPredictability of entry times xSymmetry of energy distribution xIncidence of energy load xOpportunities for flight x

Critical organizational processes:Integrative and socioemotionalCultural values promoted

Recognition of values promoted byexisting organizational culture x

Diffusion of organizationalcommitment to change x

166

Relationship of value overlays tomeasurable outcomes x

Extent of behavioral change required x x xPatterns of structured interdependence

Degree of fragmentation withinorganization xOrganizational or program type xContextual fit x x xTypes of intra- and inter-organizational

dependence x xProject team/appraisal linkage x

Implementation styleTiming of TQM xTarget the TQM intervention xMatch of client/facilitator roles x

Critical organizational processes:Boundary exchangeBuffering of technical core

Degree of boundary permeability x xVariation of constituencies

Number/types of “customers” xResource dependency

Degree of organizational/program“publicness” x

Task environmentVolatility of task environment x x x x

Type of organizationa xInterest group dominance and policy

agreementa xLeadership longevity and tenacitya xCrisis of external motivation for changea xSizea xCompetency of the organization membersa x

Note. All items taken from Durant and Wilson (1993) except items marked with subscript a, taken from Radin and Coffee (1993).

167

and commitment of top leadership as well as those from middle and lower levels withinthe organization” (p. 51).

The same dynamic can be witnessed in these cases. At the IRS, which achieved thehighest level of adoption, the commissioner, Charles Rossotti, has been a vigorousadvocate not only of the need for the organization to change but of the specific set ofprescriptions listed in Table 2. This is attributable in part to Rossotti’s extensive expo-sure to modern management doctrine as head of a management consulting firm prior tojoining the IRS as well as to the advice he received in drafting Modernizing America’sTax Agency (U.S. IRS, 1999). In comparison with the heads of both OSHA and theINS, where key design decisions were made by groups composed of subordinateemployees and consultants, Rossotti was directly involved in design decisions as chairof the executive steering committee. That the IRS adhered so closely to NPR doctrineis, thus, attributable in part to Rossotti’s personal beliefs and his ability to induce com-pliance with those beliefs within the organization.

OSHA head Joe Dear was also an enthusiastic supporter of reinvention ideas. How-ever, Dear ceded control of the design process to a subordinate group that devised thenew model described above. Lacking Rossotti’s depth of management expertise, Dearwas not well positioned to challenge the recommendations of that group or to force amore radical change agenda on the agency in accordance with NPR dictates. DorisMeissner was selected as commissioner of the INS primarily on the basis of her policyexpertise. She had neither Rossotti’s expertise nor Dear’s commitment to reinventionas a management philosophy, and the INS accordingly became something of areinvention “dropout” (Kamensky, 2001). An NPR official who worked directly withINS commented, “Meissner was an expert in immigration policy; she left managementto her deputy” (Farbrother, 2001).

Political/policy context. Radin and Coffee (1993) hypothesized that the “presenceof conflicting and multiple interest groups in a program or policy area makes it moredifficult to establish a TQM program” (p. 51). Similarly, Durant and Wilson (1993)posited that “the greater the heterogeneity of actor interests, the more difficult theTQM intervention” (p. 219). The interest group environment appears to have been adeterminant of agency adoption of NPR prescriptions as well.

Wilson (1989, p. 76) distinguished among four types of interest group environ-ments: those characterized by “client politics” with “a dominant interest group favor-ing [the agency’s] goals”; “entrepreneurial politics” with “a dominant interest grouphostile to its goals”; “interest group politics,” in which “two or more rival interestgroups conflict over its goals”; and “majoritarian politics” with “no important interestgroup.” The IRS, as a majoritarian agency, did not have to tailor its design plan to thedesires of any outside group. In fact, there was broad support in Congress for theRRA’98, which provided impetus to Rossotti’s reform strategy.

No such consensus was achieved for the design changes at either OSHA or the INS.At these “interest group” agencies, proposals for structural change become one morepoint of conflict between outside groups vying for control. In these circumstances, asDurant and Wilson (1993, p. 222) pointed out, it is in the interest of “legislative sover-eigns” to “micromanage agency activities” and thereby gain influence with the outsidegroups. An important factor constraining the extent of change possible at OSHA was


the opposition of the AFL-CIO to any reduction in enforcement activities, which was acore tenet of NPR’s approach to regulatory reinvention.

Crisis. Agencies may be more amenable to the adoption of radical change in timesof crisis than in times of normalcy. Radin and Coffee (1993) observed that “organiza-tions require some form of pressure or externally imposed motivation for change to‘unfreeze.’ ” (p. 51). Durant and Wilson (1993) hypothesized that “the less a multi-level commitment exists to change an agency’s culture, the more problematic the TQMintervention” and “the lower the readiness levels of targeted agency members, the lesslikely TQM interventions are wise or likely to be successful” (p. 221).

The advantage of crisis from the agency head’s perspective is that, to the extent theorganization is under threat, the “readiness levels” of participants are likely toincrease. As Wilson (1973) stated, “a crisis leads people to devote themselves to orga-nizational interests and eliminates the discrepancy between individual and organiza-tional interests” (p. 42). Participants may be more receptive to radical change if theyperceive that the organization’s, and hence their own, welfare is in jeopardy.

Of the three agencies investigated here, the IRS faced the most critical challenge.The agency was subject to intense criticism following the Tax Systems Modernizationfiasco and the highly publicized 1997 and 1998 Senate Finance Committee hearings inwhich allegations were made that some IRS agents had abused taxpayers in the courseof collecting back taxes (U.S. Senate, 1997). With the departure of the commissionerand deputy commissioner, a crisis atmosphere prevailed. To the extent that some IRSemployees were more receptive to the types of changes proposed as a result, Rossottiwas advantaged in his effort to induce fundamental change.

OSHA and the INS experienced crises of a lesser degree. OSHA was under threatwhen, subsequent to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1995, attempts weremade to curtail its enforcement powers and cut its budget. The crisis was relativelyshort-lived, however, as President Clinton successfully kept the budget cut to less than5% for fiscal year 1996, and legislation to curb OSHA’s regulatory powers got bottledup in committee (Congressional Quarterly, 1996). The INS experienced a minor crisisin 1997 as a result of a congressional investigation into charges that the White Housetried to speed up naturalization processes for electoral purposes and another in 2000with the Elian Gonzalez controversy. Neither crisis was directly related to operationalshortcomings, however, so that opportunities to use them to leverage change werelimited.

Policy agenda. Durant and Wilson (1993) posited that “the more turbulent and lessmalleable the task environment involved, the less likely TQM success” (p. 224). Animportant element in the task environment of these three agencies is the policy agendafacing the agency head. Where that agenda contains multiple, high-visibility items, theagency head has less ability to expend time and resources to promote operationalchange. Contributing to the low priority accorded reinvention at the INS was the verycrowded policy agenda facing the commissioner. Congress passed major immigrationlegislation in 1996, and INS was confronted with important policy matters at otherpoints in President Clinton’s tenure. Similarly, subsequent to the 1994 elections, JoeDear at OSHA was busy fending off the attacks of the congressional Republicans and


the business community. At the IRS, in contrast, the modernization initiative was thetop priority.

Size. Radin and Coffee (1993) posited that organization size is also a factor inmicrolevel change adoption. They stated, “The experience with TQM in public organi-zations suggests that no organization over 10,000 employee has been successful in itschange efforts” (p. 52). Pursuant to this argument, size would be an obstacle to changeat the IRS (100,000 full-time employees) and the INS (29,000 full-time employees).OSHA, in contrast (2,100 full-time employees), would be well suited for such inter-ventions. The size argument, however, is more relevant to the outcomes of TQM inter-ventions once they are adopted than to the adoption decision itself. Thus, Radin andCoffee pointed out that the success of microlevel interventions in large agencies ishighly contingent on the attitude of officials heading subordinate units such as “dis-tricts, regions, installations, divisions, bureaus.” No size effect on adoption decisionsis identified here.

Technology/mission. Durant and Wilson (1993) and Radin and Coffee (1993) asso-ciated a number of factors relating to agency mission and work technology with TQMoutcomes. Radin and Coffee used Wilson’s (1989) typology of federal agencies tohypothesize that “production” agencies like the IRS are best suited to interventions ofthe TQM type.8 Production agencies, according to Wilson, are those for which bothoutputs and outcomes can be measured. Radin and Coffee anticipated that a “proce-dural” organization like OSHA will “find it more difficult to implement TQM” (p. 51).

Durant and Wilson (1993) also cited measurability of results as favorable to TQMinterventions in part because TQM relies on statistical process control techniques,which require extensive production data. Because the TQM management philosophyoriginated in a production environment, production-type agencies may have a greaterpropensity to adopt TQM-type prescriptions, including those endorsed by NPR. TheIRS had been one of the early adopters of TQM (Mani, 1995), and employees there hadbeen exposed to those prescriptions previously. On the other hand, the TQM literaturereveals that TQM has been successfully applied in a wide range of functions includingschools, policing, and defense.9

A sixth element cited by Radin and Coffee (1993) as important to TQM outcomes is“competency of the organization members.” However, as described by the authors,competency is an implementation issue whereby leaders ensure that employees areadequately prepared for the changes that accompany TQM. As such, it is not a factorthat directly relates to adoption.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study finds substantial overlap between those factors identified by Durant andWilson (1993) and by Radin and Coffee (1993) as consequential to TQM outcomesand those that relate to agency decisions to adopt the NPR prescriptions. A conclusionis that agency decisions to adopt microlevel prescriptions are substantially contingenton factors such as leadership, crisis, political context, policy agenda, and technology/mission.


A president seeking to introduce a reform agenda that includes microlevel elementsfaces the likelihood that there will be a high degree of variation in the degree to whichagencies adopt the program. To the extent that this variation is attributable to factorsthat inhere in the agency, such as political context and technology/mission, there is lit-tle ability to influence that outcome. However, other factors are subject to manipula-tion. The president has the ability to appoint as heads of agencies leaders who both arepersonally committed to his change agenda and have the necessary expertise to imple-ment that agenda. This approach was taken on an incidental basis by the Clintonadministration both at the IRS and at the Veterans Benefits Administration.10

The president and his lieutenants also have an ability to generate threats or crisesthat can force a change agenda on top management. The General Services Administra-tion, for example, effected radical change as a consequence of the crisis it faced whenproposals surfaced as part of Rego II11 to privatize most of its functions and reduce staffby about 90%. Other agencies that perform functions potentially subject to privatiza-tion could similarly be placed in circumstances in which change becomes a necessity.

Finally, the president has some ability to manipulate the policy agenda in ways thatenhance prospects for reform adoption. The most direct approach is simply to make apublic case for the need for operational improvements. The NPR did this in the case ofboth the IRS and OSHA. In 1998, a task force convened by NPR generated a reporttitled Reinventing Service at the IRS (U.S. NPR, 1998), which set forth a strong casefor fundamental change in tax administration. Elements of that report were incorpo-rated in the RRA’98. OSHA reform was given prominence by the president and vicepresident early in 1995 as part of the regulatory reinvention initiative (Kane, 1995).

These are mostly “enabling” strategies; the impetus for change still has to comefrom the agency. The other factors cited make further apparent the extent to which thepresident’s capacity to force a change agenda on the bureaucracy is limited. A numberof contextual factors, including most prominently agencies’ interest group environ-ments and technologies, serve as important constraints on a president’s intent onbureaucratic reform.

Where administrative reform is of sufficiently high priority, macrolevel interven-tions that enhance the prospects for microlevel success are available. One option is toseek structural changes that can make agencies more susceptible to change pressures.Vice President Gore made such an attempt with the performance-based organization(PBO) initiative in 1996. The PBO concept was borrowed from the British “NextSteps” program12 and would have “buffered” certain service delivery units from politi-cal interference. However, for reasons of politics and policy context, as discussedabove, congressional approval of such a reform is problematic. In fact, Congressapproved only 2 of the 12 PBOs proposed by Gore.13

President George W. Bush has asked agencies to reduce the number of hierarchicallayers, similar to what was attempted by President Clinton (Friel, 2001). A conclusionfrom this study is that the president is likely to encounter difficulty in inducing agen-cies to adopt this or any other microlevel prescription included in his managementreform program. If President Bush is to improve on the results achieved by PresidentClinton, a concerted strategy to manipulate elements of agency context in ways thatenable adoption and implementation of the reforms will have to ensue.


Notes

1. For example, key prescriptions offered by the first Hoover Commission included that “the numerousagencies of the executive branch . . . be grouped into departments as nearly as possible by major purposes inorder to give a coherent mission to each department” and that “each department head . . . receive from theCongress administrative authority to organize his department and to place him in control of its administra-tion” (U.S. Commission on the Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, 1949, pp. 24-25).Similarly, the Brownlow Commission (President’s Committee on Administrative Management, 1937, p. 33)recommended the consolidation of all executive activities into 12 departments and that “the President [beallowed to] determine the appropriate assignment to the 12 executive departments of all operating adminis-trative agencies.” Such proposals have important implications for the relative administrative influence of thepresident and Congress and hence have regime-level implications.

2. These prescriptions closely track those presented in Osborne and Gaebler’s (1992) Reinventing Gov-ernment: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector, from which the whole NationalPerformance Review (NPR) derived. David Osborne, the lead author of Reinventing Government, served asa close advisor to Vice President Gore in the preparation of the report.

3. This list of prescriptions derives from a careful parsing of the text of the Report of the National Per-formance Review (U.S. NPR, 1993a). The prescriptions are related to but distinct from the 384 specific rec-ommendations included in the NPR report. Many of those recommendations were directed at specific pro-grams or agencies. The intent in developing the list is to identify the core elements of the NPR program.

4. A number of theorists associated with the organization development movement such as Bennis(1966) and Likert (1961, 1966) were early proponents of employee involvement.

5. Some NPR prescriptions were implemented by legislation. NPR-sponsored legislation included theGovernment Management Reform Act of 1994, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, the Fed-eral Acquisition Reform Act of 1996, and the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996.

6. In some agencies, change initiatives were under way prior to 1993 and were not, therefore, attribut-able to NPR. To the extent such initiatives were consistent with NPR prescriptions, as at the Veterans Bene-fits Administration, they were given impetus by the reform program.

7. See the NPR’s accompanying report, Improving Regulatory Systems (U.S. NPR, 1993b). Also, seeSparrow (1994) for a useful exposition of this approach to regulation.

8. Production agencies are those for which both outputs and outcomes can be measured. Outputs butnot outcomes can be measured for “procedural” agencies, and outcomes but not outputs can be measured for“craft” agencies. Neither can be measured for “coping” agencies. See Wilson (1989, chap. 9).

9. For example, see Poister and Harris (1997), Feeney and Zairi (1996), and Babbar (1995).10. Joseph Thompson, the director of one of NPR’s more prominent reinvention laboratories, was made

undersecretary of benefits at the Veterans Benefits Administration in 1997. Given the many factors thataffect such decisions, however, management philosophy and expertise are likely to be priorities only in pro-duction-type agencies in which a premium is placed on management expertise or in agencies with perfor-mance shortcomings.

11. Rego II is the term generally used to describe the second phase of the National Performance Review,which began when the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995. During this period, NPR generated aseries of proposals for more radical change as a means of countering Republican proposals to do away withentire departments.

12. The critical change made under Next Steps was the creation of semiautonomous units called “execu-tive agencies” within departments. Agencies have primary responsibility for the delivery of service, whereasdepartmental headquarters focus on policy development. Chief executives of the agencies are selected via acompetitive process open not only to career civil servants but to those from outside the public sector. Thechief executives are given 3-year renewable contracts and are eligible for bonuses contingent on meeting thetargets set forth in the framework document. Contracts in the form of “framework documents” are intendedto serve as a primary accountability mechanism for the chief executives.

13. Both the Student Financing Agency in the Department of Education and the Patent and TrademarkOffice in the Department of Commerce were made performance-based organizations—albeit without thedegree of management flexibility that Gore had envisioned.


References

An Act to Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to Restructure and Reform the Internal Revenue Ser-vice, and for Other Purposes (IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998), Pub. L. No. 105-206 (1998).

Arnold, P. (1998). Making the managerial presidency: Comprehensive reorganization planning, 1905-1996(2nd ed.). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Babbar, S. (1995). Applying total quality management to educational instruction: A case study from a USpublic university. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 8(7), 35-55.

Bennis, W. (1966). Changing organizations: Essays on the development and evolution of human organiza-tions. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.Clinton, W. J. (1993a). Memorandum for heads of departments and agencies. Subject: Streamlining the

bureaucracy (Presidential memorandum 09-11-93). Retrieved June 1, 2000, from http://www.npr.gov/library/direct/memos/230a.html

Clinton, W. J. (1993b). Executive order: Elimination of one-half of executive branch internal regulations(Executive order no. 12861). Retrieved June 1, 2000, from http://www.npr.gov/library/direct/memos/230a.html

Congressional Quarterly. (1996). 1996 Congressional Quarterly almanac. Washington, DC: Author.Deming, W. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study.Durant, R., & Wilson, L. (1993). Public management, TQM, and quality improvement: Toward a contin-

gency strategy. American Review of Public Administration, 23, 215-245.Farbrother, D. (2001, July 1). Telephone interview with Doug Farbrother, former Deputy Director, National

Performance Review, conducted by James R. Thompson.Feeney, A., & Zairi, M. (1996). TQM in healthcare. Journal of General Management, 22(1), 35-47.Friel, B. (2001). OMB orders agencies to submit plans for flattening management (Office of Management

and Budget daily briefing, May 11, 2001). Available from www.govexec.comHackman, J., & Oldham, G. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Hammer, M. (1990, July-August). Reengineering work: Don’t automate, obliterate. Harvard Business

Review, 104-112.Hershey, R. (1996, April 25). A technological overhaul of the IRS is called a fiasco. The New York Times,

p. A15.Kamensky, J. (2001, June 27). Telephone interview with John Kamensky, former Deputy Director, National

Performance Review, conducted by James R. Thompson.Kane, F. (1995, Spring). President Clinton and Vice President Gore laud OSHA for improvements. Job

Safety and Health Quarterly, 23.Kanter, R. (1983). The change masters: Innovation for productivity in the American corporation. New York:

Simon & Schuster.Kettl, D. (1998). Reinventing government: A fifth-year report card. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Kulick, R. (1998, July 17). Interview with Robert Kulick, Director of the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration Reinvention Office, conducted by James R. Thompson, Washington, DC.Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.Likert, R. (1966). The human organization: Its management and value. New York: McGraw-Hill.Mani, B. (1995). Old wine in new bottles tastes better: A case study of TQM implementation in the IRS.

Public Administration Review, 55(2), 147-158.Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Nadler, D. (1988). Organizational frame-bending: Types of change in the complex organization. In R. Kilmann,

T. Covin, & Associates (Eds.), Corporate transformation: Revitalizing organizations for a competitiveworld. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service. (1997). A vision for a new IRS. Reportof the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service. Washington, DC: Govern-ment Printing Office.

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transformingthe public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.


Ostroff, F. (1999). The horizontal organization: What the organization of the future looks like and how itdelivers value to customers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Peters, T. (1989). Thriving on chaos: Handbook for a management revolution. New York: Harper & Row.Pitulej, R. (2000, December 28). Interview with Robert Pitulej of the Occupational Health and Safety

Administration Reinvention Office, conducted by James R. Thompson, Chicago.Poister, T., & Harris, R. (1997). The impact of TQM on highway maintenance: Benefit/cost implications.

Public Administration Review, 57(4), 294-302.President’s Committee on Administrative Management. (1937). Report of the Committee with Studies of

Administrative Management in the Federal Government. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Radin, B., & Coffee, J. (1993). A critique of TQM: Problems of implementation in the public sector. Public

Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 42-54.Savas, E. (1982). Privatizing the public sector: How to shrink government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Self, P. (1993). Government by the market? The politics of public choice. Boulder, CO: Westview.Sparrow, M. (1994). Imposing duties: Government’s changing approach to compliance. Westport, CT:

Praeger.Thompson, J. (2000). Reinventing as reform: Assessing the National Performance Review. Public Adminis-

tration Review, 60, 508-521.U.S. Commission on the Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. (1949). The Hoover

Commission report on organization of the executive branch of the government. New York: McGraw-Hill.

U.S. Department of Justice. (1999). Draft restructuring proposal (for the Immigration and NaturalizationService). Washington, DC: Author. (Copy provided by the Immigration and Naturalization Service)

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1996). Federal downsizing: Better workforce and strategic planningcould have made buyouts more effective (GGD-96-62). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1999). Social Security Administration: Compliance with presidentialdirective to reduce management-to-staff ratio (HEHS-99-43R). Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice.

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. (1999). Annual performance plan for fiscal year 2000. Wash-ington, DC: Author.

U.S. Internal Revenue Service. (1999). Modernizing America’s tax agency. Washington, DC: Author.U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1998). The changing federal workplace: Employee perspectives.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.U.S. National Performance Review. (1993a). Creating a government that works better and costs less: The

report of the National Performance Review. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.U.S. National Performance Review. (1993b). Improving regulatory systems: An accompanying report of the

National Performance Review. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.U.S. National Performance Review. (1998). Reinventing service at the IRS: Report of the customer service

task force. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration. (1997). Reinvention one-pager, Occupational Health

and Safety Administration: The new nonformal complaint process—Getting hazards abated morequickly. Washington, DC: Author. (Copy provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Administra-tion Reinvention Office)

U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration. (2000). OSHA strategic plan. Retrieved December29, 2000, from http://www.osha.gov/oshinfo/strategic

U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration, OSHA Area Office Design Team. (1995). The NewOSHA: Getting results and improving performance. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Senate. (1997, September). Practices and procedures of the Internal Revenue Service: Hearings beforethe Committee on Finance, United States Senate. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Walton, R. (1974, May-June). Improving the quality of work life. Harvard Business Review, 12.Wilson, J. (1973). Innovation in organization: Notes toward a theory. In L. Rowe & W. Boise (Eds.), Organi-

zational and managerial innovation. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.Wilson, J. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.


James R. Thompson is an assistant professor in the Graduate Program in Public Admin-istration at the University of Illinois–Chicago, where he teaches courses in public per-sonnel management, information technology, and public management. He is the coeditorof Transforming Government: Lessons From the Reinvention Laboratories (1998) andthe author or coauthor of several articles addressing issues of administrative reform andstrategic change in public organizations. Contact: [email protected]

Shelley L. Fulla is a Ph.D. candidate in the Graduate Program in Public Administrationat the University of Illinois–Chicago. The focus of her research has been on e-governmentand organizational change in public agencies.


PPMR / December 2001Donald et al. / PARTNERSHIP FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING

A PARTNERSHIP FOR STRATEGICPLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

IN A PUBLIC ORGANIZATION

CARRIE G. DONALDTHOMAS S. LYONS

REBECCA C. TRIBBEYUniversity of Louisville

Programs for employee involvement in management decision making have receivedmuch attention in recent decades due to an increased emphasis on quality improve-ment and customer satisfaction. Private and public organizations have attempted to putinto practice successive employee involvement theories, with varying levels of suc-cess. Many of these programs were not long-lasting or intensive enough to effect sub-stantial change. However, efforts to find a successful formula for employee participa-tion and labor-management partnerships have continued. These continued effortsprove that such programs are not merely fads but are here to stay (Nissen, 1997, p. 10).In addition, particular sectors and organizations have had more success than others.Although workplace innovation is most often associated with the private sector, publicagencies and organizations are recognizing the advantages of employee participation.The goals and environments of public organizations are becoming quite conducive tohealthy employee-management relations. In unionized public organizations, theresources and attitudes of the unions themselves are also crucial to successfulinvolvement.

To determine which factors lend themselves to lasting partnerships between unionsand management in public organizations, we have conducted a case study of a partner-ship program in a public utility company: the Louisville Water Company (LWC),which is owned by the city of Louisville, Kentucky. The LWC and the Local 1683 ofthe American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME),AFL-CIO, undertook a joint effort to form a strategic plan. The labor-managementpartnership team developed a proposal for the implementation of six strategic goals,each contributing to organizational effectiveness and the labor-management partner-ship. By the end of the 1st year, three of the six strategic goals had been reached. Alabor-management team continues to meet regularly to review progress in the imple-

Authors’Note. We wish to thank the members of the Decisions Partners Team for their time and consider-ation in agreeing to be interviewed for this article.


176

mentation of the strategic goals until a full partnership between union and manage-ment has been attained.

This case provides an opportunity to study a program that has achieved a large mea-sure of success—one that has substantially changed the means by which a public orga-nization is managed and is well on its way to establishing a permanent labor-manage-ment partnership. The steps taken to develop the strategic partnership plan should beexamined in the context of the growing relationship between LWC management andthe union. It is our hypothesis that the partnership is forged in the joint planning andmanagement effort itself. Although the successful achievement of each strategic goalis desired, the lasting partnership is the ultimate benefit to company and union. In eachdivision, or system, of the company, the effort is now made to share decision-makingauthority among union and management.

In the past few years, the authors have served as neutral facilitators to the case studyparticipants through the Labor-Management Center at the University of Louisville.The center’s facilitators and university professors have assisted in strategic planningsessions and labor-management team meetings. The authors, although remainingimpartial, have provided guidance and resources to union leaders and managementrepresentatives. This case study is based on firsthand observations of the strategicplanning and management process at the case study site and is informed by access tocompany and union documents, meeting minutes, and interviews with key union andmanagement participants.

This case study contributes to organizational change literature because it is uniquein several ways. Most significant, the partnership at issue developed in the public sec-tor. Although public sector employers are sometimes threatened by potential privatiza-tion, public employers have fewer incentives to initiate organizational change than doprivate employers, who anticipate more customers and higher profits. In the workplaceunder study, union and management representatives found their motivation to changein shared commitments—quality of customer service, maintaining a qualified unionworkforce, and avoidance of privatization. Another distinctive aspect of this casestudy is the decision by labor officials to conduct strategic planning for the union, anactivity unions rarely undertake. Rarer still is the agreement between labor and man-agement to attempt joint strategic planning. The challenges and benefits of such aremarkable endeavor are outlined in this article.

Labor-Management Partnerships

LWC management and Local 1683 leaders recognized that labor and managementhave mutual interests in addition to their better known competing interests. This funda-mental recognition is the basis of cooperation. Most often management, rather thanlabor, initiates a partnership effort. The impetus for management to create a participa-tory program may be an organizational crisis or a general desire to improve efficiencyand quality. Both public and private sector organizations have faced the threat ofincreasing competition, and both have striven to gain a competitive edge by utilizingall available resources, including the abilities and knowledge of their employees(Heckscher, 1988). In the public sector, labor-management relations are subject tomore restrictions than in the private sector. However, both scholars and practitioners

Donald et al. / PARTNERSHIP FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING 177

have recognized that citizen and employee participation in governmental decisionmaking is in the public interest (Checkoway, 1977; Friedmann, 1973; Jones, 1990),and, acknowledging this, the Clinton administration championed the use of labor-management partnerships in the federal government (Clinton, 1993). In recent years,all levels of government organization have been subject to increasing demands forenhanced quality, productivity, efficiency, and customer satisfaction. Still, there arebarriers to employee participation particular to the public sector. Impediments to flexi-ble workplace programs include political factors and laws and regulations concerningemployee classification and evaluation systems (Kearney & Hays, 1994; Krim &Arthur, 1989).

Participative programs entail the input of employees into decisions involving suchmatters as work life or production issues. Some scholars have observed thatparticipative decision making is more likely to be successful in union settings than innonunion environments (Kearney & Hays, 1994). Union members may feel lessrestrained in their participation because they are protected by the collective bargainingcontract (AFL-CIO, 1994). In union settings, partnership arrangements can take par-ticipation a step further by reassigning decision-making authority. Partners meet asequals, and decisions are made jointly by labor and management representatives tomeet the needs of both sides (Herrick, 1990). Partnerships themselves can range inintensity from very limited to full partnerships (Lazes, 1995).

Unions and management in many organizations have been persuaded to attemptcooperative relationships because the potential benefits are so many. Studies haveshown that cooperation often raises profits because of higher productivity and effi-ciency, increasing job satisfaction, and decreasing turnover, absences, and accidents(Cohen-Rosenthal & Burton, 1993; Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1992). Coopera-tive relationships allow the contribution of new ideas, and participation boosts flexibil-ity and problem-solving skills. A better working environment and enhanced trust mayalso result.

These are but a few of the substantial benefits of an effective partnership effort.However, the obstacles to establishing a successful partnership are also numerous. Thelong-standing, traditional relationship between labor and management is built on anadversarial model in which conflicting interests are emphasized through collectivebargaining and grievance and arbitration processes. The realization of a cooperativerelationship often marks a revolutionary change. Even when a union-managementrelationship is not acrimonious, a proposed partnership generates fear on both sides.Management personnel fear a loss in power or even the loss of their jobs (Kolodny,1995; Lawler, 1992). Union members fear that management’s motives may not be gen-uine and that participation will weaken the union or cause it to become irrelevant(Heckscher, 1988; Kolodny, 1995). Once a partnership is established, a lack of com-mitment and trust may cause it to fail. Even successful programs have difficulty sus-taining cooperation that endures throughout the years. Established partnerships can bederailed by unforeseen obstacles. Difficult financial situations may result in layoffs,which often lower employee morale and dampen enthusiasm for risk-taking projectsinvolving flexible management techniques. Union elections may result in new leaderswho are less supportive of, or are antagonistic to, the partnership effort. Likewise,company ownership and/or management personnel may change. Partnerships may


also falter when management or union representatives do not follow through on prom-ises or do the opposite of what they say. Overall, labor and management representa-tives approach workplace issues from very different perspectives and may thereforelack a common understanding of what the cooperative relationship entails (Milinski,1998; Patton, 1994). Both sides may zealously protect their turf, engendering morerivalry and suspicion. Finally, when management is not duly committed to the partner-ship, management unresponsiveness will be reflected by a lack of participation amongemployees (Roth, 1990).

Favorable partnership methods alleviate these obstacles and have long-term poten-tial. Throughout our case study, we found evidence to support our theory that joint stra-tegic planning is a promising vehicle for sustained labor-management cooperation.Strategic planning is the process by which an organization examines its purpose andgoals, visualizes its future, and outlines a course of action to reach that envisionedfuture. Of the many potential benefits of joint strategic planning, the utmost is the cre-ation of joint goals reached by consensus. Because these goals are supported by bothlabor and management, there is a greater likelihood that labor and management willwork together to achieve them. The plan is a joint creation; therefore, both union andmanagement have a stake in it and its eventual success (Bryson, 1995). Strategic plan-ning requires a full assessment of the organization, an assessment that is more exten-sive when the perspectives of both labor and management are aired during joint plan-ning. Because of the comprehensive nature of strategic planning, it can reconstruct anorganization. Often, such a transformation in organizational structure and culture isnecessary for a partnership to survive (Donald, Lyons, & Tribbey, 1999).

Case Study Background: Nature of the Parties

Prior to the partnership initiative between LWC management and Local 1683,labor-management relations resembled a traditional labor relations model. Employeeinput and predecisional involvement were minimal. The labor-management relation-ship was, in fact, often hostile. In 1994, relations were strained by a controversial rep-resentation election involving the company’s clerical workers. The union, which rep-resented 30% to 40% of LWC’s workforce, lost a vote to add clerical workers to theunion ranks, and union leaders publicly accused the company of unfair labor practicesincluding bribery and threats (Ward, 1995). The union lodged a complaint with theLouisville Labor-Management Committee, and ultimately an agreement was struck tohold another election for clerical workers in April 1995 (Ward, 1995). The union lostthat vote as well. Relations were again strained in 1995 due to employee firings (Ward,1997).

The company’s quality initiative had begun a few years earlier in 1991. This qualitydrive was prompted by increasing demands from customers and a market in whichmore publicly owned utilities were facing competition and privatization. Between1991 and 1995, LWC made initial progress toward the achievement of a quality organi-zation. A continuous quality improvement program was established with an emphasison effectiveness and customer satisfaction (LWC, 1995). As is the case in a majority ofquality and employee participation programs, the quality drive and partnershipbetween LWC and Local 1683 were initiated at the top level of management. John


Huber, company CEO, realized that the achievement of a total quality organization(TQO) would require focused leadership and, specifically, a group that would strategi-cally manage the drive toward a TQO. In April 1995, Huber launched a new team, theExecutive Leadership Team (ELT), consisting of management personnel and oneunion member, to take on this responsibility. The team was charged with implementingthe four major elements of the company’s conception of a TQO: systems-based man-agement, empowerment, quality of work life, and a partnership among all employees(LWC, 1995).

In 1995, LWC management established the Next Level Plan, which was to guideLWC toward becoming a TQO through systems-based management. In the same year,interest in changing the nature of the labor-management relationship was evidentwhen the union member of the ELT encouraged other union leaders to attempt a differ-ent kind of collective bargaining: mutual gains bargaining or “win-win” bargaining,which focuses on consensus and mutual interests. During the ensuing negotiations,company and union representatives themselves, rather than their lawyers, sat down tobargain. The resulting agreement earned strong approval from the union workforce(Ward, 1997).

Labor-management relations took another forward step when the fourth element ofa TQO, a partnership among all employees, was implemented. The company presidentand union president signed a partnership agreement between LWC and Local 1683 inAugust 1995. Its stated goal was “to have the union participate in predecisional plan-ning of all activities and meetings at all levels throughout the Company, which affectlabor-management relations, empowered behavior, Systems-based management andquality of work life” (LWC and AFSCME Local 1683, 1995, p. 1). The agreementincluded a no-layoffs guarantee for the union workforce. At first, however, the unionguardedly participated in the TQO undertaking. At this point, the parties reported ahigh level of distrust between labor and management, with disputes between the par-ties handled almost exclusively through the grievance process. The union pulled out allsupport after an incident in which union employees were disciplined for conduct thatoccurred during a quality pilot program for meter readers. In March 1996, trustbetween the parties was at an all-time low. Management realized that the quality initia-tives were unworkable without the genuine cooperation of the union workforce. A“buy-in” by the union and its members was necessary. Signing a partnership agree-ment was not enough if labor and management were going to continue to react in thesame adversarial manner.

The Strategic Planning Initiativeand the Study Method

At this juncture, LWC management encouraged the union to begin its own strategicplanning. Management came to a realization that intimidates many executives: A weakunion partner in a TQO environment would not be an effective partner. A strong busi-ness would require a strong union. The union itself needed a clear direction and visionof the future to become the viable partner that management sought. In keeping with thecompany’s quality initiatives, management asked the union to develop the tools to par-


ticipate in strategic partnering and to create and adopt its own plan. For its part, theunion had begun to realize that continued conflict was not meeting the needs of eitherside. Not only were problems left unresolved but, prior to the partnership, the unionfound itself losing work to contractors and losing union jobs at the company. The unionneeded the partnership as much as, if not more than, management did. In the hope ofwinning back work for union members and expanding the union workforce, the unionleadership agreed to take up management’s challenge to form a strategic plan (Donald,2001).

In the course of planning, union leaders realized they lacked the information andauthority in the workplace necessary to produce a realistic approach. Input and cooper-ation from management concerning budgetary considerations, available time, andresources were required. Therefore, labor also took a risk with the unusual step ofinviting management to participate in its planning sessions. The joint planning teamwas assisted in its efforts by facilitators at the Labor-Management Center of the Uni-versity of Louisville. Facilitators guided the team in the use of John Bryson’s (1995)Strategy Change Cycle, a planning approach designed to lead public and nonprofitorganizations through strategic planning and management. The Strategy ChangeCycle is a 10-step method that emphasizes strategic “thinking and acting” throughoutthe process, community building, and meeting the needs of major stakeholders (p. 22).

For the purpose of carrying out this study, the Labor-Management Center chose themethod known as action research (Lewin, 1946). Action research was selectedbecause it lends itself well to testing our hypothesis about the importance of the pro-cess to building a lasting partnership. A qualitative technique such as this one permitsin-depth exploration of process complexities (Marshall & Rossman, 1989). There aremany different models of action research, although action researchers are principallyengaged in practical research. Individuals who utilize action research examine real-life problems, in which both the environment and the problems themselves maychange (Dickens & Watkins, 1999). Action researchers often become participatoryaction researchers, actually changing the subject of the research. This approachinvolves not only observation of actions but also of acting. An essential goal of mostaction research projects is that of problem solving, of improvement and of progressiontoward a goal. Like strategic planning, action research requires planning, activity, andevaluation and often repeated cycles of these steps (Lewin, 1946). Individuals con-nected to or affected by the research problem are also researchers and participants inorganizational change (Bruce & Wyman, 1998). McNiff (1988) summarized thisresearch method as “research WITH, rather than research ON” (p. 4). The subjects ofthe research, who are actually research participants, often work as a team or groupunder the guidance of an outside researcher or facilitator. The team, with the facilita-tor’s assistance, sets specific objectives and works to accomplish them (Dickens &Watkins, 1999). The facilitator, although observing the participant for research pur-poses, can also provide expert advice and assist with training, fact finding, team build-ing, provision of planning models, evaluation, and other activities. A researcher/facili-tator does not merely seek increased knowledge but shares the team’s goal ofimprovement of the problem at hand—in this case, the realization of a full labor-man-agement partnership.


The action research method promotes organizational change because it emphasizesinvolvement. An action research effort that involves key participants of a problem orsituation usually requires collaboration between management and employees. Afterall, the purpose of this method is not merely to identify a solution and implement it butto change the participants themselves: to increase their self-awareness and enlightentheir perspectives through interaction as a team. To foster a receptive atmosphere forenduring organizational improvements, a team should be flexible, adaptive, and sup-portive of individuals and their contributions. The team atmosphere should encourageopen and sincere participation by all team members and allow for constructive, but notdestructive, conflict (Bruce & Wyman, 1998; Fogg, 1994).

However, the ideal team is difficult to create in the real world. At first, LWC’s labor-management team of 9 labor-management planners faced challenges of communica-tion and trust. As one planning team member reported, planning sessions “felt andlooked like negotiations” (Tribbey, 2000a). The parties were cautious and wary of eachother’s motives. They were accustomed to battling for advantage and were faced withthe difficult task of changing their traditional mindset regarding labor-managementinteraction (Donald, 2001). Key management and union figures pulled the efforttogether, emphasizing the reasoning and desired outcomes that prompted the jointendeavor.

Labor and management came together to produce the AFSCME Local 1683 Strate-gic Plan: 1996-2001 in June 1996. Rather than a merger between company and unionplans, this document was the union’s blueprint for strategic action to become a partnerwith management. It had the combined purpose of being an organizational plan for theunion and an operational plan to aid the company’s TQO mission. It laid out specificguidelines for the union to follow, with the cooperation of management, to becomemore involved in the decision making of the organization. The plan had put forth sixstrategic issues:

1. How can we build a partnership for total quality with the Louisville Water Company?2. How can we build trust among stakeholders?3. How can we maintain a competitive workforce?4. How can we increase participation of membership?5. How can we improve customer satisfaction?6. How can we expand the union workforce? (AFSCME Local 1683, 1996, p. 14)

Action plans to address each of these goals were developed in the form of strategiesand tactics to reach the objectives. The partnership plan was revisited and updated dur-ing an October 1997 strategic planning retreat.

Partnership Plan Implementation

The parties needed a mechanism for implementation of the strategic plan and part-nership agreement. Management and union leaders, therefore, chartered a new labor-management team, the Decisions Partners Team (DPT), in February 1997 to overseeimplementation. Mission and membership were set out in a charter approved by theELT. This planning/operational team would be composed of 7 union members and


6 management members. The greater number of union members reflected thelabor:management ratio in the organization. Management’s comfort with this arrange-ment was a positive signal that they were not trying to control the process. When man-agement agreed to fund the team, union leaders were further reassured of the com-pany’s commitment to a partnership (Donald, 2001). Team membership would consistof union and management personnel in key areas of the water company’s operations.On the labor side, the union president, union vice president, and others selected by theLocal 1683’s executive board would join the team. Management’s members consistedof core business system owners, responsible for the core areas—production and deliv-ery, infrastructure, serving customers, and business resourcing—and other selectees.The scope of the team was defined as

1. Promoting the mutual understanding of empowerment.2. Assuring the predecisional involvement and empowerment of members of Local 1683

within the operations of the LWC as described in the Partnership Agreement andAddendum.

3. Actively and continuously communicating and sharing information with all employeesrelated to the areas of interest, work, and issues before the team.

4. Seeking and soliciting information from all employees vital to the credibility and suc-cess of the DPT. (LWC and AFSCME Local 1683, 1997a, p. 3)

The DPT would be permitted to make any recommendation that “affects the terms andconditions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement . . . subject to collective bargainingprocedures and approval by the E-Board and Body of Local 1683 and the President ofthe LWC” (LWC and AFSCME Local 1683, 1997a, p. 3).

The parties decided that the terminology in the partnership agreement providingthat the union would participate in “predecisional planning” needed to be furtherdefined. Union members of the DPT identified the desired level of union involvementon a scale of 1 to 5 in predecisional planning in strategic areas such as design and guid-ance, capital and operational plans and budgets, and frontline issues. The five levels ofinvolvement, based on a model developed in 1995 by Peter Lazes of Cornell Univer-sity, are as follows:

1. Informed: “Communication to people.”2. Consulted: “Opportunity to influence through giving feedback on what is already

designed.”3. Developers: “Participate in developing solutions, changes and proposals.”4. Input in decision making: “Opportunity to influence final decisions; participate in moni-

toring and taking corrective action.”5. Involvement in final decisions: “Full partners in reaching final decisions, formulating

plans, monitoring, and taking corrective action, assisting goals and activities.” (p. 13)

It is interesting to note that the union members of the DPT were quite practical inselecting the desired level of involvement and did not select the highest level in somecategories. These members realized that their knowledge base was not substantialenough to allow them to be active participants in all areas. Therefore, they chose at firstto move only from Level 1 to Level 2 in operational areas, such as capital plans and


budgets, in which they had only limited experience. On the other hand, having alreadybeen involved and trained in strategic planning, the union leaders wanted to move fromLevel 3 to Level 5 in the area of strategic planning.

Both management and labor DPT members developed action plans for the unionworkforce to participate to reach these levels of involvement. The addendum to thepartnership agreement, incorporating the levels of involvement, was signed in April1997. The DPT was to conduct an annual review to determine how the levels ofinvolvement are progressing and whether the union wishes to raise or scale back thedesired level of involvement in particular areas.

Other documents were drafted to assist the DPT in operating effectively and reach-ing its goals. The team adopted ground rules for its meetings, which included the selec-tion of a team leader, the agenda-setting process, and decision making by consensus(LWC and AFSCME Local 1683, 1997c). A communications plan was also formed tofacilitate communication within the DPT and between the DPT and others throughoutthe organization (LWC and AFSCME Local 1683, 1997b). One method of educationfor others in the organization was the publication of highlights from DPT’s activities inNewsLeaks, LWC’s employee newsletter.

Positive Results of Joint StrategicPlanning and Management

Major long-term goals of the DPT, which meets on company time, are to identifyand remove barriers for union participation as a genuine partner in workplace decisionmaking and expand the team’s role in strategic and operations decisions. By 2000, theDPT had met many of its goals. Three of the six strategic goals had been accomplished,and progress had been made on the others. The union president now participates fullyin the hiring process and on the ELT, and union representatives now contribute to newhire orientation and training. The relationship between management and the unionworkforce has much improved in the past 7 years, as evidenced by one measure ofunion-management relations—the number of grievances.

Year Grievances

1993 391994 221995 61996 101997 131998 331999 13

Source. Tribbey (2000a).

From 1993 to 1996, management and union were beginning to work together toresolve problems. By 1997, some union employees had begun to question whetherthey really wanted a partnership with management, and the number of grievances rose


to some extent. However, according to DPT members, the 33 grievances of 1998 werean aberration and encompassed a few main issues rather than a rash of problems. Spe-cifically, 1998 was a union election year, and several union members running for officeadvocated the preservation of a traditional labor-management relationship rather thana partnership. Although these union candidates initiated many grievances to make astand against a collaborative relationship, propartnership candidates were elected tooffice. By 1999, labor and management leaders had adopted a proactive stance inresolving employee issues. Now, the union consults with the company’s humanresources personnel before filing a grievance, and the two sides work toward a mutualsolution that will avoid the need for a grievance. In the past few years, approximately15 employees have been terminated without issue or grievance. Only one issue hasbeen brought to arbitration in the past 8 years (Tribbey, 2000a, 2000b).

There have been other tangible results of the partnership plan for company andunion. In particular, the number of jobs has grown, and the union has experienced aresultant increase in membership from 183 members to 211 over the past 3 years. Morework is now performed in-house rather than being subcontracted. In particular, unionworkers are now responsible for most new service installations and for laying orreplacing pipeline, work that was previously done by contractors. This has saved thecompany money in addition to saving time that would have been spent on bidding outcontracts (Donald, 2001). Members of the DPT report some increases in productivityand customer satisfaction, although these changes may be due to factors other than thepartnership agreement; for instance, as part of the general quality initiative, a separateprogram addresses customer satisfaction. Both labor and management members of theDPT feel, however, that the organization’s competitiveness has been enhanced bycooperation and the prospect of shared success (Donald, 2001).

Effective partnerships and employee involvement programs also often see a boostin employee attendance and morale. At the water company, these have generally notbeen problem areas. Employees have ample time off available to them, and attendancehas not changed since the implementation of the partnership. Morale seems to haverallied, as indicated by a decrease in discipline assessments against union members inthe past few years. Partnership team members report that there is much more willing-ness to work on the few discipline problems together, and management reports thatthere is a higher degree of understanding from union representatives regarding man-agement’s actions with respect to discipline (Tribbey, 2000a, 2000b). The labor-man-agement partnership is even visible on the front lines of the workplace, where employ-ees and supervisors on work teams have formed alliances to strive toward shared goals(Donald, 2001). High morale, however, does not necessarily prevail throughout theentire workforce. There are still individuals from both union and management who donot support the partnership or understand the effort required to achieve a full partner-ship. Most union members, though, realize that they have a voice at higher levels andthat the union is now an integral part of planning and budgeting. Levels of involvementvary with different areas and teams, although this involvement scale has also beenadapted for use with some nonunion employees (Tribbey, 2000a, 2000b).


Barriers to Joint StrategicPlanning and Management

Alongside all the partnership’s success, however, there have been numerous obsta-cles to overcome. Securing the support of the union workforce and management per-sonnel is usually the first essential step of a labor-management partnership. Both laborand management are often apprehensive about change. When LWC managementapproached the union with its quality program and proposed partnership, union mem-bers encountered many of the same fears that other unions have experienced inresponse to workplace innovation (Heckscher, 1988; Lloyd, 1996). Union employeeswondered whether they were being used, whether management’s motivation was tomake them work harder with a resulting loss of jobs (Donald, 2001). As the partnershipgot off the ground, some members blamed the partnership for any situation not to theirliking and, in certain instances, accused management of not acting as a partner. In1996, the union president at the time attempted to pull the union out of the partnership.The union body, however, voted to retain the partnership. Most members realized thatthe CEO was committed to union involvement and that a union voice at the planningtable would be of considerable assistance to the union’s own goals.

Management faced doubts among its own ranks regarding the partnership. Somelower and middle management personnel were critical and questioned the motivesbehind the effort. Their resistance was also grounded in common fears regardinglabor-management partnerships (Kolodny, 1995). Many supervisors had to turn overpartial authority to union workers and share in the decision-making process. Somehave found it difficult to relinquish control and understandably fear the loss of theirjobs. Presently, there is a growing comfort level with and appreciation for the partner-ship. The more management is exposed to partnership, the more they see the benefitsand the less threatened they feel. However, there is still the possibility that manage-ment ranks will be thinned. It is likely that fewer management personnel, rather thanmore, will be needed in the future due to a flatter organizational structure (Tribbey,2000a, 2000b).

Implementation of the partnership plan did not run as quickly or smoothly asexpected. At first, implementation was underfunded. To correct this, in February 1997,the DPT made a presentation to the ELT concerning necessary time allocations andresources for the DPT effort, and, in response, ELT provided funding. Implementationof the plan was further complicated when it became evident that the partnership planand company strategic plan contained competing agendas. These plans incorporatedhundreds of commitments. Completion of each and every commitment in the timeallotted was overly ambitious. The commitments themselves needed to be prioritizedand the two plans integrated where possible. In 1999, LWC’s business system opera-tors performed a gap analysis to determine the conflicts and congruence between thetwo plans in the hope that plan implementation could be further linked in the future.

The DPT itself encountered problems internal to the team. Team members facedintense time pressures during the implementation phase due to ambitious timelines,and action plans were not completed on schedule. When team membership changed,the dynamics of the team were sometimes altered, and extra time was needed to rebuilda cohesive, dedicated group. Although DPT members themselves generally developed


strong working relationships with each other, those relationships were strained whenissues external to the team’s partnership mission arose during meetings. Because manyteam members were the same individuals who handled labor-management issues out-side the team, it was difficult to separate such issues from partnership issues. Anemployee termination would often stop the process in its tracks, due to the high level ofconflict between union and management (Tribbey, 2000a, 2000b). During weeklyDPT meetings, team members would occasionally address outside topics that invari-ably sidetracked the team from its two primary missions—the implementation of thepartnership plan and the identification of opportunities to further the partnership(AFSCME Local 1683, 1998, p. 3). These issues, whether disciplinary, operational, orcontractual, could not be solved within the DPT, which was not set up to address suchconcerns. Because of the inappropriate nature of the forum, team discussions oftencovered the same ground over and over with no resolution of these issues. The DPT,though, recognized that the team had gone off course and took steps to remedy the situ-ation. They enlisted the help of third-party facilitators once more and held a teamretreat at the University of Louisville in January 1999. At this retreat, team membersfocused on team building: defining the team vision, values, and roles and specifyingthe team’s problems, barriers that were causing these problems, and solution steps.During the retreat and in subsequent meetings, the team also defined boundary condi-tions and developed a process to handle outside issues that tend to disrupt the team.This conflict management and resolution mechanism, as termed by John CalhounWells (1996), is an essential ingredient to a labor-management partnership, which isnecessarily conflictual at times. A conflict management and resolution mechanismhelps prepare partnership members for future conflicts and provides a formal processby which disputes are confronted and resolved rather than being allowed to aggravateand wreck the partnership. At the 1999 retreat, the DPT determined that issues externalto the partnership agenda would be reviewed by a subteam of DPT members thatwould decide whether the DPT was the correct team to address a particular issue. If so,the subteam would request time on the DPT agenda to discuss the issue. Otherwise, thematter would not be discussed on team time.

Although these outside issues were the major barriers for the team, other difficultieshindered progress. During the 1999 team retreat, a member complained that the part-nership issue seemed to run “hot and cold.” At times, the partnership plan seemedvitally important; at other times, DPT members became unfocused, reducing theteam’s level of priority (Donald, 2001). Team members were invariably sidetracked bytheir job responsibilities, and attendance at team meetings suffered. During the retreat,the team made plans to renew their commitment, boost their communication efforts toothers in the organization, and emphasize the essential nature of the partnership effort.

Current Status and Further Challenges

In early 2000, LWC management and Local 1683 representatives completed nego-tiations for the 2000 to 2003 labor contract. Negotiations ran for a 6-month period andcaused a 2-month hiatus for the DPT. However, negotiation of the contract was itself aparticular strategy for furthering the partnership, having been incorporated within thepartnership plan. In addition, in interviews with the authors, negotiating committee


members emphasized that the suspension of DPT was due solely to time constraints onthe negotiators, because 3 union and 3 management negotiators were also DPT mem-bers (Tribbey, 2000a, 2000b). Prior to the suspension of meetings, negotiation issuesthat might have impeded the smooth functioning of the team did not arise during DPTsessions; the issues-resolution process was working. Both management and unionnegotiators reported that negotiations were not adversarial and were viewed as suc-cessful and fair by both sides. The negotiating committee used quality tools to arrive atsolutions together and reviewed every rule in the contract with an eye toward stream-lining. Involvement by legal counsel or third-party mediators was not necessary. Man-agement trusted the union’s interpretation of many points in the existing contract, andunion negotiators were now extremely knowledgeable about pertinent issues and hadan enhanced understanding of what management would be able to offer. Several of thenegotiators indicated that the new contract would not have been possible without thestrong labor-management relationship that had developed through joint strategic plan-ning and the DPT. The growth of the cooperative relationship in the past 3 or 4 years setthe foundation for a contract that one management negotiator described as containingthe most significant operational changes that the company has seen in the past 20 years.He observed that the new contract would have been impossible just 5 years before(Tribbey, 2000b).

In particular, labor and management negotiators agreed on contract provisions thatchanged the organization of LWC’s workforce. Four work areas (metering, operationsand maintenance, infrastructure/capital, and operations of plant workers) were createdfor the entire union workforce. Because union employees often skipped around fromjob to job within the company and filled daily vacancies outside of their usual workarea on the basis of seniority, the company had difficulty maintaining productivity andcontinuity within positions. To boost competitiveness, a plan to increase consistencywas formed. With the adoption of the work area plan, day-to-day vacancies are nowfilled by an employee from within the work area, an arrangement somewhat similar todepartmental seniority. However, when a job vacancy becomes available, employeesare permitted to transfer to another work area. The funds spent on training are nowbetter utilized because employees are trained only for their assigned area. The workarea plan was put into effect by allowing nonclassified workers to pick their work areasby seniority; every year, they are given the option of changing areas. Classifiedemployees were assumed to be already working in their preferred areas and so wereassigned to those areas. The first time such a plan had been proposed, the union voted itdown. However, this time, when management presented the proposal to all affectedemployees, it was accepted because of employees’ better understanding of the detailsand a realization by the union that the plan would maintain the company’s competitiveedge (Tribbey, 2000b).

Other significant changes were implemented pursuant to the new contract. Steps inthe grievance process were cut from four to three. The first step involves taking a griev-ance to the “process owner” or departmental manager, the second takes the grievanceto the labor-management committee, and the third is arbitration. Another importantnew provision of the contract was the establishment of weekend crews. As a result,weekend workers do not receive overtime pay as previous called-up weekend workersdid. However, these employees receive 5% premium pay. The two weekend crews,


which work 10-hour days, were needed to address customer service requirements andhandle weekend emergencies. Another commitment to quality was created by the newcontract provision that requires employees working toward a Class-4 license, man-dated by law for plant operators, to attain the license within 3 years. The test is very dif-ficult, but, if an individual has not obtained the license within 3 years, he or she may beremoved from the work area without recourse to the grievance process (Tribbey,2000b).

In addition, negotiators reached noteworthy agreements with regard to pay and ben-efits. A pay raise of 3% for 3 years was agreed on and shift premiums were established.Union employees now receive the top pay in the industry for the region. During con-tract negotiations, the union also agreed to convert the Martin Luther King, Jr., holidayfrom a floating holiday to an established holiday. In return, management now allowsunlimited vacation requests for the eve of the Kentucky Derby, a notable occasion formany Louisville residents. If any emergency arises at that time, there is a callout foremployees. Death leave was also expanded under certain circumstances. An additionalday off for a perfect attendance record was incorporated; employees now receive 3 daysoff for perfect yearly attendance.

In March 2000, following contract negotiations, the DPT held a strategic planningretreat to update and modify the strategic partnership plan. At this retreat, a timelinefor fulfillment of action plans was prepared for 2000 and 2001. In July 2000, as a by-product of negotiations, the union agreed to a pilot program whereby daily vacancieswould be filled exclusively from within the geographic location, such as from one par-ticular plant. This program would extend the agreement regarding work areas andwould further provide for consistency because several locations may fall within onework area (Tribbey, 2000b).

The fulfillment of the strategic goals and levels of involvement is the DPT’s currentagenda. The team continues to meet every 2 weeks, with subteams meeting weekly.The team envisions a future in which the education of the workforce continues and thepartnership philosophy reaches throughout the organization. The union also antici-pates that it will grow stronger and be a full partner in effecting the structural and cul-tural transformation necessary for a TQO. In the future, there may be one integratedstrategic plan for both company and union. Labor and management realize that thesuccess of the company depends in large part on the success of a maturing partnership.The fear of privatization is a motivating factor to persevere in the face of obstacles(Tribbey, 2000a, 2000b).

Major Lessons Learned

There are several key lessons to be learned from this case study. The commitment oflabor and management representatives is of paramount importance. Top managementpersonnel must be fully committed to a partnership effort and must contribute ade-quate resources to the effort. Union leaders’commitment is essential to ensure that theunion’s goals will be incorporated within the partnership plan and to help secure thesupport of the union workforce. Two other messages to take away from this case studyare the importance of setting realistic goals and of focusing on a lasting partnership. Apartnership must be built slowly and step by step. Small successes build the foundation


for more extensive organizational change and for a more positive, constructive labor-management relationship.

MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT

In the early 1990s, the top level of LWC management realized that the water indus-try was in a state of change. To become more competitive, improvements in work pro-cesses and quality were necessary. John Huber, CEO of LWC, realized that the supportof the union workforce was critical to the quality effort. His belief and commitmenthave driven the quality initiative and labor-management partnership. In fact, somemembers of the DPT have expressed concern over the survival of the partnership if hewere to leave. To avert the return to a more hierarchical organization and adversariallabor relations, DPT members hope to ingrain the partnership into the attitudes andoperations of the company so that it may endure through any future change in top-levelmanagement (Tribbey, 2000a, 2000b).

The lessons of this strategic partnership begin at the top. This level of managementmust be fully committed to the idea of labor-management cooperation. Actions ofmanagement must speak as loudly as words; sufficient resources—time, funding, andpersonnel—must be allocated to the effort or the workforce will not commit itself tothe idea of partnership either. Managers of quality programs must ensure that othermanagers and frontline supervisors are trained and educated to understand the neces-sity of the partnership venture. These personnel can be either instrumental in champi-oning quality and partnership or stubborn impediments to implementation.

UNION COMMITMENT

When management approaches union representatives with a proposal for anemployee involvement program or a partnership, union leaders would be well advisedto suggest joint strategic planning. In this way, unions can be assured that union desiresand goals, as well as management goals, will be addressed and that implementationwill be a joint venture. Unions should secure certain guarantees from management upfront, especially that no layoffs will result. The support and participation of the unionworkforce for the new initiative will be difficult to obtain without such a guarantee.Elected representatives face particular pressures and feel a special obligation to theindividuals they represent. Representatives of Local 1683 recommend that union lead-ers who participate in a joint planning effort keep an open mind so that the union canreap the greatest possible benefits from workplace innovation. At the same time, unionrepresentatives must remember not to lose their union identity. During joint strategicplanning and management, union leaders may begin to view issues from a companyperspective for the first time. Although union representatives directly involved in apartnership effort will be focused on the well-being of the entire organization, theymust also represent and address the concerns of their workers. Maintaining the supportof union employees is critical because these employees have the power to elect newofficers unreceptive to partnering. This support may be sustained by explaining part-nership activities to the union membership. Open and honest communication can beencouraged by an accessible process for employee inquiries and concerns. Union lead-ers should remind themselves and their membership that partnership opens the door to


many resources and opportunities. Although unions’ traditional functions can remaintheir primary focus, they should be aware that they limit themselves if they remainwithin the bounds of conventional labor-management relations (Tribbey, 2000a).Unions, not only management, should be concerned with efficiency and their owncompetitiveness. If their organizations succeed, they can share in that success (Donald,2001).

REALISTIC GOALS

Although commitment of both management and union is key, realism is also neces-sary. The movement from established adversarial labor relations to a labor-manage-ment partnership is slow, and progress is often halting. Expectations will be high, andmost labor-management teams set very ambitious targets. It is often preferable to setfewer objectives and be able to achieve them. Although bold and sweeping goals maybe unavoidable when the ultimate aspiration is a full partnership, teams must stayfocused on long-term outcomes. Positive changes may not be evident until the initialphases are over. When benefits are not realized immediately, partnership membersmay question the worth of the undertaking. At this point, partners should ponder whatmight happen if they do not make the effort (Tribbey, 2000a, 2000b). When accom-plishments are achieved, they must be recognized and applauded or the human ten-dency to dwell on delays and obstacles may dampen morale and weaken commitment.

FOCUS ON A LASTING PARTNERSHIP

Joint strategic planning and management are invaluable tools for the constructionof a durable labor-management partnership. Out of the process of defining joint val-ues, vision, goals, and action plans, a new relationship materializes between labor andmanagement representatives. They come to understand each other’s concerns,motives, and expectations. They build the structure of the partnership together. Theyplan how they will work in concert and how they will evaluate the combined effort. Asthis case study suggests, the relationship that has developed between LWC manage-ment and the union is the most valuable benefit of strategic partnering. Although thefuture may certainly bring new challenges, the partnership exhibits many signs of per-manency. Improved labor relations have been evident, not only within the partnershipteam, but also in the realm of collective bargaining and day-to-day contract adminis-tration. Each side recognizes how dependent it is on the other and how workingtogether will build a solid, effective organization to the benefit of both managementand labor. The DPT itself has demonstrated commitment to team building and trainingand has developed a formal method for dealing with issues that sidetrack the team(Wells, 1996). By doing so, team members have been able to maintain focus on thestrategic plan and to strengthen the partnership. Through action research, the team andits facilitators have acquired a deeper insight into the maintenance of a constructivelabor-management relationship. Not only has the knowledge base of the participantsexpanded, but significant progress has been made toward the fulfillment of the ulti-mate goal of the team’s research and activities: a full and lasting labor-managementpartnership.


Partnership team members of LWC and AFSCME Local 1683 emphasized that thechallenging work is worthwhile, even though, as one management representative indi-cated, “Getting along often appears more difficult than not getting along” (Tribbey,2000a). A partnership does take more time and effort than an adversarial relationship,but it is more fruitful and rewarding. Members of the DPT suggested two importantsteps that labor-management teams should take to lay the foundation for a strong part-nership: examine other successful partnerships and talk with the participants to learnfrom their experiences, and enlist a facilitator to encourage openness and help bridgethe gap between the parties (Donald, 2001). Over time, trust can develop, althoughlabor-management utopia is probably not possible and should not be the aim. The taskof a partnership is never actually complete, and inevitable barriers and complaints willcertainly arise. However, the process for addressing and resolving such barriers can bepermanently altered and enhanced by the endeavor of joint strategic planning. In thepublic sector, the adoption of this technique may be especially applicable at this time,when public agencies and organizations have a legitimate fear of privatization. Toremain efficient and competitive, these organizations must focus on quality, the fulfill-ment of which requires the collaboration and commitment of employees. In unionizedworkplaces, the time is ripe for partnerships built on a solid foundation of joint strate-gic planning and management.

References

AFL-CIO Committee on the Evolution of Work. (1994). The new American workplace: A labor perspective.Washington, DC: AFL-CIO.

AFSCME Local 1683. (1996). AFSCME Local 1683 strategic plan: 1996-2001. Louisville, KY: Author.AFSCME Local 1683. (1998). Strategic/partnership plan, 1998-2000 (revised). Louisville, KY: Author.Bruce, R., & Wyman, S. (1998). Changing organizations: Practicing action training and research. Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Sage.Bryson, J. M. (1995). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening

and sustaining organizational achievement (Rev. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Checkoway, B. (1977). Citizen participation technology. Monticello, IL: Council of Planning Librarians.Clinton, W. J. (1993, October 1). Exec. Order No. 12871. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents.

Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration.Cohen-Rosenthal, E., & Burton, C. E. (1993). Mutual gains: A guide to union-management cooperation.

Ithaca, NY: ILR.Dickens, L., & Watkins, K. (1999). Action research: Rethinking Lewin. Management Learning, 30(2), 127-

140.Donald, C. (2001, September 19). Interviews with Decisions Partners Team members, Louisville, KY.Donald, C., Lyons, T., & Tribbey, R. (1999, February 18-22). The next stage in employee involvement: Part-

nerships for strategic planning and management. In American Society of Business and Behavioral Sci-ences 1999 Conference Proceedings. Las Vegas, NV: American Society of Business and BehavioralSciences.

Fogg, C. D. (1994). Team-based strategic planning: A complete guide to structuring, facilitating and imple-menting the process. New York: American Management Association.

Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America. Emmaus, PA: Rodale.Heckscher, C. C. (1988). The new unionism: Employee involvement in the changing corporation. New York:

Basic Books.Herrick, N. (1990). Joint management and employee participation: Labor and management at the cross-

roads. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Jones, B. (1990). Neighborhood planning: A guide for citizens and planners. Chicago: American PlanningAssociation.

Kearney, R. C., & Hays, S. W. (1994). Labor-management relations and participative decision making:Toward a new paradigm. Public Administration Review, 54(1), 44-51.

Kolodny, D. (1995). Driving fear out of labor-management relationships. Journal for Quality and Participa-tion, 18(3), 6-10.

Krim, R. M., & Arthur, M. B. (1989). Quality of work life in city hall: Toward an integration of political andorganizational realities. Public Administration Quarterly, 13, 14-30.

Lawler, E. E., III. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high-involvement organization. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E. E., III, Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. (1992). Employee involvement and total qualitymanagement: Practices and results in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lazes, P. (1995, June). Building effective labor-management partnerships. Journal for Quality and Partici-pation, 18(3), 12-14.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-36.Lloyd, J. (1996, October-November). The pitfalls of participative management. Maintenance Repair Oper-

ations Today, 46-47.Louisville Water Company. (1995, August). The next level plan: A systems-based management approach to

becoming a total quality organization. Louisville, KY: Author.Louisville Water Company and AFSCME Local 1683. (1995, August). Partnership agreement between

LWC and Local 1683. Louisville, KY: Author.Louisville Water Company and AFSCME Local 1683. (1997a, February). Charter of decisions partners

team. Louisville, KY: Author.Louisville Water Company and AFSCME Local 1683. (1997b). Communications plan for the decisions

partners team. Louisville, KY: Author.Louisville Water Company and AFSCME Local 1683. (1997c, December). Ground rules for the decisions

partners team. Louisville, KY: Author.Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.McNiff, J. (1988). Action research: Principles and practice. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.Milinski, M. S. (1998). Obstacles to sustaining a labor-management partnership: A management perspec-

tive. Public Personnel Management, 27(1), 11-21.Nissen, B. (Ed.). (1997). Unions and workplace reorganization. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.Patton, W. D. (1994). A choice between paleontological and contemporary approaches. Review of Public

Personnel Administration, 14(4), 52-64.Roth, B. (1990, September). A new role for unions. Journal for Quality and Participation, 23, 46-51.Tribbey, R. (2000a, March). Interviews with Decisions Partners Team members, Louisville, KY.Tribbey, R. (2000b, July 11). Interviews with Decisions Partners Team members, Louisville, KY.Ward, J. (1995, April 8). Water-company workers face union vote. Courier-Journal, p. B14.Ward, J. (1997, October 23). Union and management agree water co.’s partnership works. Courier-Journal,

p. C1.Wells, J. C. (1996). Conflictive partnership: A strategy for real world labor-management cooperation. Labor

Law Journal, 47(8), 484-492.

Carrie G. Donald is an associate professor of public administration and director of theLabor-Management Center at the College of Business and Public Administration at theUniversity of Louisville, Kentucky. Contact: [email protected]

Thomas S. Lyons is an associate professor of urban and public affairs and director of theMaster of Urban Planning Program in the College of Business and Public Administrationat the University of Louisville, Kentucky. Contact: [email protected]

Rebecca C. Tribbey is a research analyst with the Labor-Management Center of the Col-lege of Business and Public Administration at the University of Louisville, Kentucky.Contact: [email protected]


PPMR / December 2001Bhatta / ENABLING THE CREAM TO RISE TO THE TOP

ENABLING THE CREAMTO RISE TO THE TOP

A Cross-JurisdictionalComparison of Competencies for

Senior Managers in the Public Sector

GAMBHIR BHATTAState Services Commission, New Zealand

As public sectors around the world begin to be buffeted by a new generation of man-agement reforms, there is an increasing need felt for what has been described as “delta-type officials” with high-level and well-honed “critical choice capacities” (Dror,1997). The question arises, though, as to how these officials are to be identified, tar-geted, developed, monitored, and made to rise to the top. Increasingly, the competencyapproach has come to be seen as having unique advantages in that regard and as being acore element in the design of a new corps of senior managers. In its essence, the idea isto use the set of competencies to find out what kinds of leadership behaviors and skillsare needed in the managers of tomorrow and then to assess promising individuals bythose yardsticks.

There is a growing trend now for governments to employ the competency approachto anchor public sector management, including but not limited to leadership develop-ment, strategic human resource management, training and development, and succes-sion planning. This has been in evidence in several Organization for Economic Coop-eration and Development (OECD) countries (see OECD, 1999, 2000a) and, althoughthe particular nature of the specified competencies has tended to vary among the coun-tries, there seems to be a surprising degree of coalescing around some common coreelements. Like so many management innovations, competency frameworks were orig-inally conceptualized entirely in the private sector and then transferred wholesale intothe public sector. Intellectual work on competencies does not date very far back. Theyhave been in active use only since the late 1980s, although management stalwarts suchas David McClelland (1973) talked about competencies almost three decades ago. Yet,there has now been a considerable amount of interest in employing competencies in

Author’s Note. I would like to thank the various anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on thedraft of this article. The views expressed here are my own and do not represent those of the State ServicesCommission.


194

the public sectors around the world and particularly in the upper echelons of the ser-vices. However, with some notable exceptions (primarily Hondeghem & Vander-meulen, 2000; Horton, 2000a; and Morley & Vilkinas, 1997), there has not been muchanalytical work of recent origin that looks at their application in the senior ranks of thepublic sector and across various jurisdictions.

The purpose of this study is to build on the work done by the authors cited earlier,primarily because several key jurisdictions have substantially revamped their compe-tencies since then. This article adds to the body of knowledge, because the literature isvery sparse on lessons to be learned from a cross-jurisdictional analysis of public sec-tor senior managers with competencies as the platform. The results are expected tocontribute to—and guide jurisdictions in—their efforts to streamline the developmentplans for senior managers. An important caveat is in order here: Whereas competen-cies are behaviors that are deemed desirable in staff members of any organization, howthey are to be identified is problematic, in large part because they are so loose in theirdefinitions and lend themselves to various interpretations. This article does not focuson how the competencies are to be identified but on what they are in the countries understudy and how they compare across jurisdictions.

Concept and Application of Competencies

DEFINITION AND CHARACTERISTICS

The term competence is used to identify someone who is efficient and effective orwho has the ability to perform to a standard. There are several nuances to this defini-tion (Antonacopoulou & FitzGerald, 1996; Athey & Orth, 1999). A related term, com-petency, is also used quite liberally in the literature and refers to “specific behavioursand characteristics of a person that result in effective or superior performance”(Mansfield, 1999a, p. 25). Mansfield further asserts that there are four interrelatedaspects of any job that are always present, albeit at possibly different levels (Mansfield,1999b, p. 43): (a) technical expectations, (b) managing change, (c) managing differentwork activities, and (d) managing working relationships. For the purposes of thisstudy, I will use the terms competence and competency interchangeably.

Regardless of which notion of competence is used, there are certain characteristicsof competences that human resource practitioners uniformly highlight (Pickett, 1998):they must (a) be related to realistic practices that are evident at the workplace; (b) beexpressed as an outcome rather than a procedure or process; (c) be observable andassessable; (d) not contain evaluative statements but instead be tied to performance cri-teria against which they will be assessed; (e) be sensible and specific and not subject todiverse interpretations; and (f) be transferable across organizations, industries, andoccupations.

Competencies tend to have the individual as the unit of analysis (Athey & Orth,1999, p. 218). Practically all organizations distinguish between behavior-based com-petencies that relate to “how the manager acts” and attribute-based competencies thatrefer to “what the manager is.” A related concept here is that of organizational compe-tence (Jurie, 2000; Nadler & Tushman, 1999). Organizational competence is neces-sary so that individuals and groups can have a proper platform to exercise competency.

Bhatta / ENABLING THE CREAM TO RISE TO THE TOP 195

It should also be noted that there should be a fit between what the set of competenciestargets and what the vision of the organization is. The work of the senior managers,then—through their specified competencies—is modulated to adhere to the organiza-tional strategic vision that ultimately enables fulfillment of agency mission. This is akey component that explains why all sets of competencies for senior managers tend toemphasize the notion of strategic vision.

APPLICATIONS

The literature on competencies is rich considering that they have been in activeusage only since the 1980s (although the so-called modern competency movement issaid to have dated back to the late 1960s and early 1970s; see Brundrett, 2000). There isno unanimity in their utility. Whereas some (Boyatzis, 1982; McClelland, 1973, 1994)have always looked on it favorably, others (such as Barrett & Depinet, 1991) haveexpressed doubts. A review of the literature shows that governments have argued forthe usage of competencies in the public sector by building on what currently exists inthe private sector and enhancing it by incorporating environment-specific characteris-tics, such as political awareness, to suit existing conditions.

Since 1997, there has been some work done on getting a better handle on the com-petencies required of public sector executives. Morley and Vilkinas (1997), for exam-ple, using the Executive Service in Australia as a case study, showed that there areindeed some generic qualities expected of executives in both the private and publicsectors. These include the qualities of vision and strategy, people skills, and, by exten-sion, interpersonal skills. More recently, Noordegraaf (2000), based on a case study ofDutch public managers, has made an attempt at contextualizing the competencies ofmanagers in the public sector by bundling the competencies related to professionalisminto three strands: interpretive, institutional, and textual. These, however, appear to bebased on actual rather than normative competencies in public managers. (For substan-tive evidence of similarities and differences in skills sets needed for leaders in the pub-lic and private sectors, see Varette & Zussman [1998]; on career trends of Canada’s pri-vate and public sector executives, see also Redman & Mathews [1997] and Silfvast &Quaglieri [1994].)

In recent times, the usage of competencies has covered much ground on, inter alia,human resource management practices and systems in general (Lado & Wilson,1994), management development (Antonacopoulou & FitzGerald, 1996), profession-alism in and effectiveness of public managers (Pickett, 1998), and leadership compe-tencies and their application (Bennis, 1993). There are also countless sets of compe-tencies in place in jurisdictions around the world. Two of the better known weredeveloped by Dulewicz (1994) and Hunt and Wallace (1997). Dulewicz listed 10 skillsthat capable senior managers would be expected to exhibit, including strategic vision,adaptability, interpersonal sensitivity, and business acumen. Hunt and Wallace identi-fied five competency clusters: personal management, strategic and change manage-ment, leadership and team building, problem solving, and administrative and opera-tions management.

Of particular interest here is the literature on public sector competencies. Neitherthe Dulewicz (1994) supracompetences nor the Hunt and Wallace (1997) groupings


adequately reflect what transpires in the complex public sector environment. The liter-ature on public sector competencies is also comparatively sparse. The push for devel-oping public sector executives along the lines of the private sector has been made forsome time (Drucker, 1967). Whereas performance management regimes that flowedfrom the much-discussed New Public Management (NPM) reforms primarily in theUnited States and United Kingdom were the natural precursor to the usage of compe-tencies in the public sector, only recently has this particular aspect been highlighted inthe literature (see, for example, Horton, 2000b; Virtanen, 2000).

Competencies in Use in the Public Sector

Five jurisdictions are selected for this study: the United States, New Zealand, Aus-tralia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. In each, the study’s focus is on thosepeople designated as senior civil servants in the jurisdiction’s relevant senior publicservice. The United Kingdom and New Zealand are “ordinarily considered to havebeen among the leading cases of ‘new public management’ reforms of the 1980s and1990s” (Hood, 1998, p. 444); hence, reviewing their efforts at introducing the use ofcompetencies in the public sector merits serious attention. The United Kingdom, alongwith Australia and the Netherlands, has recently revamped its set of competencies forsenior managers. New Zealand is in the midst of finalizing a senior management devel-opment program expected to incorporate specified competencies. The United Stateshas done considerable work on the core qualifications in the Senior Executive Service(SES). These countries thus provide a comprehensive database for studying manage-ment competencies.

The discussion that follows on country cases is organized longitudinally, that is, byjurisdictions that first experimented with the use of competencies in the upper eche-lons of the public service followed by the more recent cases. This ordering mirrors thedate of establishment of their respective senior public services. The competenciesmentioned here are worded exactly in the manner that the various jurisdictions them-selves have done. Factors specific to each jurisdiction will affect the interpretation of acompetency, and the names are not always a reliable guide to their meaning.

UNITED STATES

The United States was the first country to designate a Senior Executive Service(SES), and it is unique given the deliberate checks and balances among political, judi-cial, territorial, and agency powers within the political system. Checks and balanceshave served as boundaries for civil servants in their work, which helps explain the diffi-culties that SES members have had with reconciling their “neutral” competencies with“responsive” competencies (Aberbach & Rockman, 1994, 1997).

Competencies have been much used in the United States. Called executive corequalifications (ECQs), they are used not only to select new members into the SES butalso to form the basis for the executive and management development curriculum. TheECQs have a fairly long history (Edwards & Gregory, 1998): In 1992, the U.S. Officeof Personnel Management (OPM) directed an extensive assessment for identificationof competencies for effective leadership. In 2 years’ time, these were developed into


the Leadership Effectiveness Framework, which comprises 22 competencies. OPMupdated this framework with leadership competency models—and best practices—from the private sector and, after piloting the product in 17 agencies, came up with theECQs in 1997 (see Table 1).

OPM asserts that the ECQs are needed to build a federal corporate culture thatdrives for results, serves customers, and builds successful teams and coalitions withinand outside the organization. The ECQs are required for entry to the SES and are usedfor selection, performance management, and leadership development for managementand executive positions.

NEW ZEALAND

New Zealand has attracted much attention in the literature on public sector manage-ment by virtue of its preeminent position in taking public sector management reformsthe furthest. One key aspect of these reforms has been the role, competencies, and per-formance of the chief executives of the various government departments (see, amongothers, Boston, 1991, 1993; Mascarenhas, 1993). Underpinning the work of the chiefexecutives is a list of nine competencies (see Table 2) that have been in place since1994.

Note, in Table 2, the focus on building and sustaining relationships; this is impor-tant because it is now widely felt in New Zealand that this was a missing component inthe NPM reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s. Note also that unlike in the other juris-dictions under review here, there is in New Zealand no formal set of competencies thathas been put in place for members of the SES. The SES itself, created in 1988, is for allpractical purposes now defunct. The State Services Commission—a government cen-tral agency—is currently working on a new senior management development programfor the public service that will have at its core a set of competencies for seniormanagers.

AUSTRALIA

The literature is quite ample on competencies as well as leadership in both the Aus-tralian federal- and state-level public sectors (see, for example, Baker, 1989; Morley &Vilkinas, 1997; Renfrow, Hede, & Lamond, 1998). Although it has been more than a


Table 1. Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs) (United States)

ECQ Associated Leadership Competencies

Leading change Continual learning, creativity/innovation, external awareness, flexibility,resilience, service motivation, strategic thinking, and vision

Leading people Conflict management, cultural awareness, integrity/honesty, and teambuilding

Results-driven Accountability, customer service, decisiveness, entrepreneurship, problemsolving, and technical credibility

Business acumen Financial management, human resources, and technology managementBuilding coalitions Influencing/negotiating, interpersonal skills, oral communication,

and communications partnership, political savvy, and written communication

Source. Edwards and Gregory (1998); Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2000b).

decade since competencies have been discussed in the Australian context (see, forexample, Ives, 1991), only in recent years has the Australian SES begun to employcompetencies.

The Australian SES was created in 1984, and the Public Service and Merit Protec-tion Commission (PS&MPC) is charged with ensuring its sustenance. To furtherenhance the SES, a new Senior Executive Leadership Capability Framework (SELCF)was introduced in 1999 to replace the prevalent SES selection criteria. The SELCFfocuses on five capabilities sought in public service leaders (see Table 3): (a) shapingstrategic thinking, (b) achieving results, (c) cultivating productive working relation-ships, (d) exemplifying personal drive and integrity, and (e) communicating withinfluence.

The PS&MPC takes great pride in saying that the SELCF is homegrown and allowsfor a considerable degree of flexibility. The competencies can be expanded accordingto individual agency requirements; this flexibility enables the departments to tailorselection and performance criteria to meet their own needs.

THE NETHERLANDS

The Dutch Senior Public Service (SPS) was formally established in 1995. Ori-ginally with a size of about 360 staff members, the pool of senior managers included inthe SPS is now around 800 (Office for the Senior Public Service, 2000). To help in thecareer development of the staff members, there is a set of 28 competencies grouped inseven clusters (see Hondeghem & Vandermeulen, 2000). In addition, individual agen-cies are allowed to complement this set with skills deemed relevant in view of theuniqueness of their own work. The original seven clusters and 28 skills in the DutchSPS are shown in Table 4.

The expanded version of this skills set has recategorized the seven clusters andspecified in greater detail the behavioral aspects of all SPS competencies (for greater


Table 2. Competencies for Chief Executives (New Zealand)

Competency Descriptor

Strategic leadership Forward thinking; developing and communicating relevant direction foragency

Effective communication Able to explain, persuade, convince, and influence othersManaging in the political- Awareness of the environment and ability to position the agency

cultural context accordinglyBuilding and sustaining Establishing and sustaining good working relationships with all

relationships stakeholdersHonesty and integrity Modeling the highest standards of personal and professional behavior,

including being incorruptible and politically impartialCommitment to Personal commitment to excellence and a goal orientation

achievementManagement of people Concerned with maximizing the quality and contributions of staff membersManagerial expertise Concerned with effective application of best management practiceIntellectual capability Concerned with applying intellectual processes; understanding work

situations, problems, and opportunities

Source. State Services Commission (1999, p. 19).

detail, see Office for the Senior Public Service, 2000). The overriding attribute seen inthese competencies is that there is much more specificity than in other jurisdictions(such as the United Kingdom).

UNITED KINGDOM

The Senior Civil Service (SCS) in the United Kingdom—made up of about 3,000civil servants—has been in operation only since 1996. A product of extensive assess-ment and review work in the preceding 2 years, the SCS is now subject to a commonperformance appraisal system based on a set of core competencies. Underlying thebasis of the competencies is that of management development, anchored in the 1999Modernising Government White Paper, which placed considerable focus on leader-ship training. Although there has been in existence for more than a decade and a halfnow some form of a competency framework in the Civil Service College designed


Table 3. Senior Executive Leadership Capability Framework (Australia)

Competency Discussion

Shaping strategic thinking Inspiring a sense of purpose and direction; focusing strategically; harnessinginformation and opportunities; showing judgment, intelligence, andcommon sense

Achieving results Building organizational capability and responsiveness, marshallingprofessional expertise, steering and implementing change and dealingwith uncertainty, and ensuring closure and delivering intended results

Cultivating productive Nurturing internal and external relationships; facilitating cooperation andworking relationships partnerships; valuing individual differences and diversity; and guiding,

mentoring, and developing peopleExemplifying personal Demonstrating public service professionalism and probity, engaging risk and

drive and integrity showing personal courage, committing to action, displaying resilience,and demonstrating self-awareness and a commitment to personaldevelopment

Communicating with Communicating clearly, listening, understanding and adapting to audience,influence and negotiating persuasively

Source. Public Service and Merit Protection Commission (1999).

Table 4. Competencies for Senior Managers (the Netherlands)

Cluster Competencies

Coherent governance Vision of the future, target orientation, networking skills, leadershipProblem solving Information analysis, judgment, conceptual flexibility, resoluteness of

purposeInterpersonal behavior Listening skills, interpersonal sensitivity, flexible behavior, collaborative

skillsOperational effectiveness Initiative, control, delegation, fast interplayImpact Oral communication, self-confidence, convincing power, tenacityResilience Energy, stress resistance, performance motivation, learning capacityGovernance sensitivity Environmental awareness, governance affinity, integrity, dedication

Source. Adapted from Hondeghem and Vandermeulen (2000). See also Office for the Senior Public Service(2000).

around its training programs (Horton, 2000b), the set of competencies recently final-ized go beyond the training realm.

The development of senior managers in the United Kingdom SCS is being donewithin the context of a set of competencies (see Table 5) that has now been finalizedafter several iterations and after being piloted for validation in 18 agencies. The idea isto use the competency set to learn the behaviors and skills needed in the leaders oftomorrow and then to assess promising individuals accordingly.

The aim of using the competencies highlighted in Table 5 is to develop a leadershipprofile for each promising candidate so that individual-specific training and develop-ment interventions can be made down the road. This is further put into context by thefact that the SCS members are expected to have gained a broad range of experiencesand outlook (not only through mobility within and interchange outside but alsothrough ensuring right opportunities for those below to equip themselves for promo-tion; see U.K. Cabinet Office, 1999).

Cross-Jurisdictional Comparisons

In light of the above country experiences, what can be said about how they comparewith each other? We look at these sets of competencies at two levels: the first as com-pared among the country cases; and the second, for illustrative purposes alone, as com-pared against a benchmark of competencies evident in other organizations. For the lat-ter, we refer to the eighth annual benchmarking study conducted by the Competency &Emotional Intelligence journal in the United Kingdom (see Rankin, 2000/01). The sur-vey looks at the use of competencies across various organizations in both the publicand private sectors, and whereas the coverage is restricted to the United Kingdom, itdoes provide some basis to juxtapose these five country cases with the benchmarkedones, more than a third of which are public sector organizations. The purpose of thiscomparison is not to assert supremacy or preference of one set of competencies overanother but to sense the degree of their alignment.

AMONG THE COUNTRY CASES

We begin by noting that in all jurisdictions, “vision and strategy” as a competency isgiven the most emphasis. The competency of “thinking strategically” and being able toarticulate a vision—and, more important, getting people to share that vision—is


Table 5. Senior Civil Service Competence Framework (United Kingdom)

Competency Key Attribute(s)

Giving purpose and direction Creating and communicating a vision of the futureMaking a personal impact Showing the way forward; leading by exampleGetting the best from people Inspiring people to give their bestLearning and improving Drawing on experiences and new ideas to improve resultsThinking strategically Harnessing ideas and opportunities to achieve goalsFocusing on delivery/outcomes Achieving value for money (VFM) and results

Source. U.K. Cabinet Office (2000).

clearly evident in all the jurisdictions. This goes to the heart of what the senior managerin the public sector is expected to do.

There is also a general trend that jurisdictions have moved substantially away fromthe core foundation of NPM, that is, customer orientation. With the exception of theUnited States, no jurisdiction makes specific mention of “consumer orientation.” Inthe United Kingdom, where private sector values were so central in guiding public sec-tor work, customer orientation is no longer in vogue. Some further research on theimpact of the Labour government of the past 5 years should certainly shed further lighton this.

It is also curious that the fundamental competency of ethics is not emphasized in theUnited Kingdom SCS, whereas it is given wide coverage in the other four jurisdictions.It can be deduced that the recent set of competencies developed in the United Kingdomhas tacitly got over the excesses of the previous era of conservative governments andhas also tended to go much beyond the work of the Nolan Committee. Elsewhere, hon-esty and integrity as competencies are given strong emphasis.

A large part of what senior managers in the public service are expected to dorevolves around leading the change process and managing political relationships withministers and other stakeholders. They need to possess communication skills, businessacumen, and people-related skills including relationship management. All the coun-tries reviewed here highlight the need for those competencies. Finally, it can be saidthat with only a few exceptions—such as the focus on stress resistance as a compe-tency in the Dutch SPS—there is broad convergence on the types of competencies thatthese jurisdictions have specified for their public service senior managers. This shouldnot come as a surprise, however, because public service leadership issues tend to berather generic across jurisdictions.

AGAINST THE BENCHMARK

When compared against the competencies used in the 40 organizations in the com-petency benchmark survey, some interesting conclusions emerge (see Table 6).

It is clear from Table 6 that the two competencies that are clearly emphasized in thesenior public services of all five jurisdictions (that is, “results orientation” and “leader-ship”) are prevalent in only about half the organizations included in the benchmarksurvey. On the other hand, the competency that is most prevalent in the survey organi-zations—“team orientation”—is strong only in the United States SES and is not men-tioned in any of the other four jurisdictions. This is rather curious because work pro-cesses in senior public services have for some time tended to be oriented towardproject work in teams. Clearly, some further grounded research appears to be neces-sary to assess these misalignments.

The senior public service competency other than “results orientation” that comesclosest to being aligned to the benchmarked ones is “communication.” All jurisdic-tions—with the notable exception of the United Kingdom SCS—place primaryemphasis on this competency. Conversely, as mentioned earlier, “customer focus” as acompetency appears not to be important. In terms of the individual countries, the com-petencies specified in the United States SES are seen to be the most closely alignedwith the benchmarked ones. The United Kingdom SCS is clearly at the opposite end in


this respect. Finally, it is interesting to note that the “ethics” competency—so stronglyemphasized in all jurisdictions but the United Kingdom—is named by only 5% of the40 organizations included in the survey (Rankin, 2000/01, p. 13).

Implications

Comprehensive as these sets of competencies are, they do not measure up to whatDror (1997) has asserted are the attributes of the superprofessional delta-type seniorcivil servant. Dror argued that the alpha-type senior civil servant gets his or her rankbased on ascribed status (such as right of birth), the beta-type servant from the


Table 6. Comparison of Competencies Across Jurisdictions

Emphasis on Competency

Degree of United New Zealand UnitedPrevalence States (Chief Australia Dutch Kingdom

Competencya (%)a SES Executives) SES SPS SCS

Team orientation (working in ateam, team leadership, buildingand leading a team) 78 �� — — — —

Communication (communicatingeffectively; oral, written, andinterpersonal communication) 65 �� —

Customer focus (customerservice orientation; client focus) 65 �� — — — —

People management (managingand developing individuals;managing others) 58 � �� — —

Results orientation (results focus;achieving results; goal orientation;drive for results) 58 ��

Problem solving (developingsolutions; analytical thinkingand judgment) 55 �� — �� —

Planning and organizing (operationalplanning; organization and workplanning) 48 � — �� —

Leadership (leading people) 43 ��

Business awareness (business andmarketplace awareness; businessorientation) 38 �� — �� —

Decision making (making sounddecisions; decisiveness) 35 �� — —

Technical skills (job expertise andprofessional competence;professional ability; specialistskills and knowledge) 35 �� — —

Note. SES = Senior Executive Service; SPS = Senior Public Service; SCS = Senior Civil Service. See Tables1 through 5 for further definition of competencies. — = no emphasis on; � = scant emphasis on; �� = sec-ondary (implied) emphasis on; �� = primary (specified) emphasis on.a. Data taken from Benchmark Survey (Rankin, 2000/01).

purchase of government positions, and the gamma-type from the professional merit-based system. The delta-type civil servant focuses on higher order tasks, with manage-rial functions being tended to by upgraded gamma-type officials. The “clusters of nec-essary knowledge and skills going beyond the Gamma-type and moving towardssuper-professionalism” (pp. 13-14) include, among others,

• deep understanding of social processes,• understanding of institutions and their dynamics,• familiarity with main policy issues with a focus on long-range perspective,• knowledge of decision-making realities, and• possession of a good measure of value philosophy and ethical reasoning.

Dror (1997) listed other required skills as well and asserted that the main skill is “theability and habit to build bridges between abstract knowledge and concrete issues,explicitly and tacitly” (p. 15). A tall order indeed, particularly because so much ofwhat he talks about is difficult to operationalize.

There is also one important caveat to keep in mind here. Notions of competenciesand competency frameworks are embedded with weaknesses. Terms like competencygaps inherently lead to emphasis on gaps rather than on aspirations and values. Devel-opers of the competency frameworks should be more aware of the implications of whysenior managers are not able to develop themselves. Boyatzis (1982) argued that the“boiling-frog syndrome” (that is, not perceiving very gradual change) has stifledopportunities for senior managers to develop themselves (see Adams, 1998, p. 22).

In the upper echelons of public service, the central theme of senior manager compe-tencies is leadership, accompanied by politics. Public service links those who makepolicies to those who implement them (Aberbach & Rockman, 1997; Mulgan, 1998;Rourke, 1992). But, the relationship is not always harmonious (Perry & Miller, 1991).This larger context has strong implications for the design and application of compe-tency sets.

Conclusion

Governments around the world are showing greater interest in using competenciesto identify and target leadership behaviors and skills in their public services. A reviewof the competencies used in the senior public services of the United States, New Zea-land, Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom shows a broad convergenceon the general types of competencies at the upper echelons of public service, but thedegree of importance attached to any competency—with the exception of “strategicvision”—is not uniform across jurisdictions. Drawing from a recent benchmarkingsurvey of 40 public and private sector organizations, it can be said that the competen-cies in use in these public services are not well aligned with what is in evidenceelsewhere.

Based on the review of the five jurisdictions, it can also be asserted that the nature ofthe senior public service competencies has tended to veer from what have been thestandard lines of thinking in the NPM reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s, as evi-denced in the shift away from the focus on customer orientation for senior managers.


Even as public sector organizations have tended to adhere to work practices evident inthe private sector, there is a fair degree of misalignment of the competencies used inand among various organizations, particularly at the senior levels.

The analysis presented here has to be put into proper context by noting that the defi-nitions and interpretations of the term competencies are different across jurisdictions,organizations, and even within organizations themselves. Any comparison of compe-tencies in use across various jurisdictions and organizations is subject to interpreta-tion. Whether other jurisdictions contemplating usage of competencies will want tomove closer to any of those reviewed here will depend very much on the particularenvironment that exists for their respective public services. Clearly, further research onthe issues raised in this article would add value to the debate on which competenciesare to be emphasized at what level for senior managers in the public sector.

References

Aberbach, J., & Rockman, B. (1994). Civil servants and policymakers: Neutral or responsive competence?Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 7, 461-469.

Aberbach, J., & Rockman, B. (1997). Back to the future? Senior federal executives in the United States.Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 10, 323-349.

Adams, K. (1998). Third international competency conference tackles the big issues. Competency & Emo-tional Intelligence, 6, 20-22.

Antonacopoulou, E. P., & FitzGerald, L. (1996). Re-framing competency in management development.Human Resource Management Journal, 6, 27-48.

Athey, T. R., & Orth, M. (1999). Emerging competency methods for the future. Human Resources Manage-ment, 38, 215-226.

Baker, J. R. (1989). From management to leadership: A comparative perspective on leadership in the Aus-tralian Public Service. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 48, 249-264.

Barrett, G., & Depinet, R. (1991). A reconsideration of testing competence rather than intelligence. Ameri-can Psychologist, 46, 1012-1024.

Bennis, W. (1993). An invented life: Reflections on leadership and change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Boston, J. (1991). Chief executives and the Senior Executive Service. In J. Boston, J. Martin, J. Pallot, &

P. Walsh (Eds.), Reshaping the state: New Zealand’s bureaucratic revolution (pp. 81-113). Auckland,New Zealand: Oxford University Press.

Boston, J. (1993). The appointment and accountability of departmental chief executives. Public Sector, 16,12-15.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York: Wiley.Brundrett, M. (2000). The question of competence: The origins, strengths, and inadequacies of a leadership

training paradigm. School Leadership & Management, 20, 353-369.Dror, Y. (1997). Delta-type senior civil service for the 21st century. International Review of Administrative

Sciences, 63, 7-23.Drucker, P. (1967). The effective executive. Oxford: Butterworth Heineman.Dulewicz, S. V. (1994). Personal competences, personality, and responsibilities of middle-managers. Com-

petency & Emotional Intelligence, 1, 20-29.Edwards, J., & Gregory, D. (1998). New executive competencies for leading change. The Public Manager,

27, 41-43.Hondeghem, A., & Vandermeulen, F. (2000). Competency management in the Flemish and Dutch civil ser-

vice. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13, 342-353.Hood, C. (1998). Individualized contracts for top public servants: Copying business, path-dependent politi-

cal re-engineering—or Trobriand cricket? Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Admin-istration, 11, 443-462.

Horton, S. (2000a). Competency management in the British civil service. International Journal of PublicSector Management, 13, 354-368.


Horton, S. (2000b). Introduction—The competency movement: Its origins and impact on the public sector.International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13, 306-318.

Hunt, J., & Wallace, J. (1997). A competency-based approach to assessing managerial performance in theAustralian context. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 35, 52-66.

Ives, D. (1991). The SES: Obtaining the core competencies. Australian Journal of Public Administration,50, 480-484.

Jurie, J. D. (2000). Building capacity: Organizational competence and critical theory. Journal of Organiza-tional Change, 13, 264-274.

Lado, A. A., & Wilson, M. C. (1994). Human resources systems and sustained competitive advantage: Acompetency-based perspective. Academy of Management Review, 19, 699-727.

Mansfield, B. (1999a). What is “competence” all about? Competency & Emotional Intelligence, 6, 24-28.Mansfield, B. (1999b). What competence is really about. Competency & Emotional Intelligence, 6, 41-44.Mascarenhas, R. C. (1993). Building an enterprise culture in the public sector: Reform of the public sector in

Australia, Britain, and New Zealand. Public Administration Review, 53, 319-328.McClelland, D. (1973). Testing for competence rather than intelligence. American Psychologist, 28, 1-14.McClelland, D. (1994). The knowledge testing educational complex strikes back. American Psychologist,

49, 66-69.Morley, K., & Vilkinas, T. (1997). Public sector executive development in Australia: 2000 and beyond.

International Journal of Public Sector Management, 10, 401-416.Mulgan, R. (1998). Politicisation of senior appointments in the Australian Public Service. Australian Jour-

nal of Public Administration, 57, 3-14.Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. (1999). The organization of the future: Strategic imperatives and core competen-

cies for the 21st century. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 45-60.Noordegraaf, M. (2000). Professional sense-makers: Managerial competencies amidst ambiguity. Interna-

tional Journal of Public Sector Management, 13, 319-332.Office for the Senior Public Service. (2000). The Dutch senior public service 2000: Quality in context. The

Hague, the Netherlands: Ministry of the Interior, Office for the Senior Public Service.Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1999). Beyond training: Developing and nur-

turing leaders for the public sector (Public Management Group, Symposium on Government of theFuture [1999] Rep. No. 9). Paris: Author.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2000a). Developing public service leaders forthe future—Background paper by the Secretariat (Public Management Group, Symposium on Govern-ment of the Future [2000] Rep. No. 1). Paris: Author.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2000b). Summary record: HRM working partymeeting. Paris 3-4 July 2000 (Public Management Group, Symposium on Government of the Future[2000] Rep. No. 12). Paris: Author.

Perry, J., & Miller, T. (1991). The Senior Executive Service: Is it improving managerial performance? Pub-lic Administration Review, 51, 554-563.

Pickett, L. (1998). Competencies and managerial effectiveness: Putting competencies to work. Public Per-sonnel Management, 27, 103-115.

Public Service and Merit Protection Commission. (1999, May 19). Launch of the senior executive leader-ship capability framework [Electronic version]. Canberra, Australia: Author. Retrieved January 23,2001 from http://www.psmpc.gov.au/media/ministerspeech19may.htm

Rankin, N. (2000/01). Raising performance through people: The eighth competency survey [BenchmarkingSurvey]. Competency & Emotional Intelligence, 2-23.

Redman, T., & Mathews, B. (1997). What do recruiters want in a public sector manager? Public PersonnelManagement, 26, 245-256.

Renfrow, P., Hede, A., & Lamond, D. (1998). A comparative analysis of senior executive service in Austra-lia. Public Productivity and Management Review, 21, 369-385.

Rourke, F. (1992). Responsiveness and neutral competence in American bureaucracy. Public Administra-tion Review, 52, 539-546.

Silfvast, R., & Quaglieri, P. (1994). Management skills transferability and the public and private sector man-ager. Public Personnel Management, 23, 117-126.

State Services Commission. (1999). Senior management development and capability report. Wellington,New Zealand: Author.


U.K. Cabinet Office. (1999). Bringing in and bringing on talent: Civil service reform—A report to the meet-ing of permanent heads of departments, 30 September–1 October 1999. London: Author.

U.K. Cabinet Office. (2000, November). Civil service corporate management, development of a new seniorcivil service competence framework (Final Rep., p. 22) [Electronic version]. London: Author. RetrievedJanuary 23, 2001 from http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/civilservice/performanceandreward/docu-ments/scscomp.pdf

Varette, S., & Zussman, D. (1998). Today’s leaders: Career trends of Canada’s private- and public-sectorexecutives. Canadian Public Administration, 41, 284-304.

Virtanen, T. (2000). Changing competences of public managers: Tensions in commitment. InternationalJournal of Public Sector Management, 13, 333-341.

Gambhir Bhatta (Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is currently a senioradviser at the State Services Commission in Wellington, New Zealand. His prior assign-ments have been at the National University of Singapore, the United Nations, and thePittsburgh City Planning Department, among others. Contact: [email protected]


PPMR / December 2001Bruhn et al. / PERSPECTIVES ON EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION

ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES ONEMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION INPLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL

CHANGEA Survey of Two State

Public Welfare Agencies

JOHN G. BRUHNNew Mexico State University

GARY ZAJACTemple University

ALI A. AL-KAZEMIKuwait University

The federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of1996 provided the opportunity for individual states to serve as laboratories and trynovel social and economic experiments to see what policy changes might turn the wel-fare safety net into an economic ladder (Coffin, 1997; “Give This Workplace aChance,” 1996). We do not know yet precisely and comprehensively what states willdo when they innovate (Lieberman & Shaw, 2000). Data from case studies of six statesthat were innovators and early adopters of welfare reform policies (California, NewJersey, Michigan, Ohio, Maryland, and Wisconsin) showed that there were as manycommonalities as differences in how these states went about welfare policy changes(Norris & Thompson, 1995). Data from other states (Delaware and Kansas) indicatedthat the political culture and leadership of the state influenced the speed, process, andimpact of welfare reform (Curtis, 1999; Johnston & Lindaman, 1999). Institutionaland ideological factors also affected the success of reform at the local welfare agencylevel (Sheak & Haydon, 1996). Welfare reform requires that public assistance agen-cies shift their culture from an emphasis on eligibility determination and verification toone of client service (Hansan & Morris, 1999). After 4 years, this shift is still in processwith mixed results (Besharov & Germanis, 2000).

Welfare reform legislation coincides with ongoing interest by public administratorsand scholars in the involvement and empowerment of employees in creating organiza-tional change. Much of the literature concludes that participation in change helps tocreate healthy relationships and, in turn, healthy organizations (Maslow, 1998; Rosen,


208

1991; Weisbord, 1987). However, there are some paradoxes inherent in organizationalchange that limit involvement and participation in planning (Mintzberg, 1994;O’Connor, 1995). A recent review of more than 100 articles and books by Nyhan(2000) led to his development and testing of a new, trust-based model of public sectormanagement. He found that participation in decision making, feedback from and toemployees, and empowerment of employees leads to increased interpersonal trust in apublic organization.

The purpose of this article is to ascertain the ethical perspectives and beliefs of pub-lic sector welfare employees about the extent to which they and others like them shouldparticipate in planned organizational change. Specifically, we surveyed the executivesand employees in two state welfare agencies about the extent to which employeesshould participate in planning and implementing change in their organizations. Weselected two states for comparison: one in the Midwest that was an early innovator andadopter of welfare reform, and one in the East that was undergoing reform at the timeof the survey but was not an early adopter. We wanted to explore the attitudes and prac-tices regarding participation in planned change in these two states, which were geo-graphically and politically different and were at different stages in implementing wel-fare reform.

Planned organizational change in all organizations does not have the same purposeor occur in the same way. Organizational change may focus on reengineering, restruc-turing, reframing, or modification in culture, for example, to make an organizationmore customer-service oriented. In this article, organizational change is shown to bemultifaceted: State welfare agencies needed to modify their cultures, develop appro-priate structures to deliver new types of services, and change the images of the agen-cies in the eyes of clients and the public. Therefore, we adopted a broad definition oforganizational change in this article, recognizing that it could take different forms(and did) in different states.

Literature Review

MORAL FRAMEWORKS

The literature emphasizes the potential for widespread participation to enhance thesuccess of planned organizational change, although little light is shed on the moralcontext of such participation. Participation is thought by many scholars to promotebetter decisions and more effective and high-performance organizational change,although empirical evidence of such benefits is mixed (Sagie, Elizur, & Koslowsky,1990; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1996). Zajac and Bruhn (1999) raised the question ofwhether participation is morally required in organizations. They referred to four moraltheories or frameworks that have shaped much of the dialogue on ethics in Western civ-ilization (deontology, consequentialism, Rawlsian ethics, and virtue-based ethics) forguidance.

The deontologist would posit a fundamental obligation on the part of the organiza-tion to allow, facilitate, and encourage participation in planned organization change(Sashkin, 1984). Participation is seen as a good in and of itself. Organizations, then,would seem to have obligations to allow employees and others to fully participate in

Bruhn et al. / PERSPECTIVES ON EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION 209

decision-making processes in the organization. Employees can be thought to have spe-cial claims to participation because of their membership in the organization. The orga-nization, in turn, may have an obligation to determine what forms of participation areseen as meaningful by employees.

For the consequentialist or utilitarian, participation would be seen as a meanstoward an end rather than a good in itself. The utilitarian would see participation as away of enhancing employee morale and building support for the change effort. For theutilitarian, participation in planned organizational change is largely a managementtool rather than a moral imperative.

Rawls (1971) would propose that conditions in the organization should be struc-tured to produce good outcomes for the least advantaged clients and members of theorganization. Thus, the organization needs to make special efforts to include the leastadvantaged and make sure that their contributions are valued.

The virtue-based theory of ethics has a greater focus on the individual than the threeprevious theories. Virtue-based ethics can take one of two tacks. First, virtue-basedethics can be self-actualizing, looking to the development of excellence in all persons.A self-actualizing approach to participation would argue that participation should bestructured to make the participant a better person. An elitist approach to virtue-basedethics would examine the moral and intellectual fitness of the individual before pro-moting his or her participation. Only the “best and brightest” would be permitted toparticipate. Contributions would be judged harshly and rejected readily.

Clearly, there are many ways of conceptualizing participation in an organization.Organizations have a responsibility for providing a climate of participation if they areto remain healthy. It is impossible to please all members of an organization by offeringall conceivable forms and variations of participation. Yet, participation is a vital part oforganizational life and its processes. For participation to be successful, organizationalmembers must know how to participate (Sashkin, 1984). Participation, then, may notbe a moral imperative as Sashkin (1984) argued, but it is desirable in mostorganizations.

PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Employee participation in planned organizational change has been argued to haveboth negative and positive effects on organizations (Schwochau, Delaney, Jarley, &Fiorito, 1997). On the negative side, it has been argued that participation arrangementscan be inefficient and costly when large numbers of people are involved. On the posi-tive side, participation is seen to lead to attainment of employees’ higher order needs,which in turn leads to increased morale and satisfaction and decreased resistance tochange (Miller & Monge, 1986). More direct influences on performance are thought tooccur through motivational and cognitive activities that encourage employees to workharder and smarter (Leana & Florkowski, 1992; Locke & Schweiger, 1979).

Benefits may be realized from participation, however, even when employees arenot directly involved in decisions relating to change. Miller and Monge (1986) arguedthat “participative environments” or, as Senge et al. (1999) referred to them, “strategicconversations,” can produce positive effects. Participation opportunities are likely to


be seen as more meaningful when employees have more authority to implementchange than when they have less authority.

Finally, researchers have found that profit-sharing programs enhance employeesupport for changes in policies when employees do not have other extrinsic rewards.Similarly, certain structural characteristics of participation programs can also influ-ence the effectiveness of the program. Cooke (1990) found that various measures rang-ing from the intensity of employee involvement to the control by a union over a pro-gram were positively associated with organizational outcome measures. Axelrod(1992) has proposed a conference model involving an entire organization as a way ofreducing the time of participative planning and maximizing input.

WORKPLACE HUMANISM

Perhaps the best-known advocates for participation as a means of creating ahumane workplace and providing opportunities for employees to work toward theirpotentials are Maslow (1998) and De Pree (1989). De Pree has said that the most effec-tive contemporary management process is participative management. Leaders need tofoster environments and work processes within which people can develop relation-ships with each other, the work group, and clients. De Pree proposed five steps in par-ticipation: respect people, understand corporate and personal value systems, agree onthe rights of work, understand the role of contractual agreements and covenants, andunderstand that relationships count more than structure. As De Pree noted, “Structuresdo not have anything to do with trust. People build trust” (p. 29). O’Toole (1995) statedthat leadership is about ideas and values. It is about understanding the differing andconflicting needs of followers. And, it is about energizing followers to pursue a betterend state (goal) than they had thought possible. It is about creating a values-basedumbrella large enough to accommodate the interests of followers but focused enoughto direct all their energies in pursuit of a common good.

Covey (1990) suggested the need for a paradigm shift to principle-centered leader-ship, which has four characteristics: It is holistic, ecological, developmental, andbased on proactive people. He advocates a win-win agreement wherein people cansupervise and evaluate themselves in terms of that agreement. The work environmentand managers should be helpful resources in tapping the motivation and performanceof employees. As Covey said, “commitment comes from involvement—it acts as a cat-alyst in the change process” (p. 218).

To achieve leadership at every level, organizations must rely on two principles: par-ticipation and psychological ownership (Rosen, 1991). Participation makes peoplefeel validated because their work has meaning, because they can influence the out-come, and because they can have an impact on others. Psychological ownership is theconsequence of participation. Ownership arises when people see that their efforts canmake a difference and that they are an integral part of the process.

READINESS FOR PARTICIPATION

Participation does not happen by a single invitation. Indeed, some organizationswill need to be “respirited” from the top (Epps, 1995). Respiriting is an affirming expe-


rience about the value of a person’s contribution to the organization. As Epps (1995)noted, “Organizations already have spirit, that is, there is always some mood, atmo-sphere, or morale predominant among the group. The real question is how to releasethe positive spirit that is capable of energizing the people and the place” (p. 46).

Also, it cannot be assumed that everyone in the organization will participate whenthe opportunity is offered. Miller, Johnson, and Grau (1994) found several antecedentsof employees’ willingness to participate in change. Employees identifying with theorganization are likely to believe in the organization’s goals, trust its leadership, and,consequently, be less anxious about the impact of change on their work roles. Individ-uals with a high need for achievement enjoy challenging situations and are most likelyto be supportive of change. In contrast, employees with a low need for achievement arelikely to be anxious about change because of its unknown and unwelcome demandsand challenges. In a similar view, change restructures social networks and creates anx-iety, but this effect is more evident among employees with a low need for affiliationthan those with a high need for affiliation. Finally, Kets de Vries and Balazs (1999)found that key factors of successful personal change include the presence of a socialsupport system and a personality style described in the literature as “hardy.”

Resistors to change appear to be employees who state that “no one ever tells meanything” and feel that prior information has not been helpful. Also, employees whoare unsure of the requirements and demands of their new role are likely to view infor-mation as unhelpful and to resist change. The initial appraisal of employees’intentionsto participate in planning change is likely to be a sign of the likelihood of the venture’ssuccess. Indeed, management may have to make several attempts to lay a foundation ofmutual trust before ground rules for participation are discussed (Zajac & Al-Kazemi,1997).

IMPACT OF PARTICIPATION

Nurick (1994) conducted a longitudinal field study to determine the impact of for-mal employee participation in the planning and implementation of change regardingthe quality of work life and concluded that employees who were observed to partici-pate more directly in a planned organizational change program experienced greaterpsychological benefits in the form of increased influence in work-related decisionsand improved attitudes. Furthermore, Nutt (1992) analyzed several planned changeprojects using interviews and content analysis to identify tactics used by managers toimplement change and found that managers were far more successful when participa-tion was used to entice people to go along with planned change.

Lyth (1991) pointed out that institutions affect the personalities of their memberstemporarily or permanently. As an institution changes, so do its members. She notedthat there are some fairly simple measures of institutional health: productivity andmorale indicators such as turnover, absenteeism, and sickness rates. These give someindication of the health of the employees and their level of satisfaction as well as theirneed to escape from a situation. These measures are also some indication of the loyaltyemployees feel toward the institution.

Karasek and Theorell (1990) found that when employers increased the demands onemployees while simultaneously decreasing their decision latitude, the employees


experienced elevated blood pressure levels. They also found that individuals con-fronted with a stressful situation in which they could exercise no control over the out-come stopped tackling the problem. Job-induced passivity was also linked todecreased productivity. The authors argued that redesigning jobs to increase participa-tion by employees can positively impact cardiovascular disease and possibly alcohol-ism, psychiatric illness, and other problems.

Worldwide, examples of successful participative management experiments havemultiplied (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Research on participation shows it to be one of fewways to increase morale and productivity simultaneously. Efforts at fostering partici-pation have failed for two main reasons: (a) the difficulties of designing workableparticipative systems, and (b) managers’ ambivalence (Bolman & Deal, 1997).

THE PRESENT RESEARCH FOCUS

Because public welfare agencies nationwide have been undergoing organizationaltransformation, there was a unique opportunity to explore the attitudes and beliefsabout involving employees in the process of change. As much of the literature indi-cates that employee participation is positive for both the employees and the organiza-tion, the authors wanted to explore the question of whether organizations have a moralresponsibility to involve employees in planning and change processes and to examinethe personal moral frameworks from which these responsibilities emerge.

Research Design

The empirical work of this study was guided by the following research questions:

• Which moral frameworks guide public sector employee participation in planned organi-zational change?

• To what extent do public employees believe that they have a role to play in planned orga-nizational change?

• To what extent do public employees participate in various phases of planned organiza-tional change, and how does this participation vary within the organization?

• What do public employees perceive as the benefits and problems associated withemployee participation in planned organizational change?

SAMPLE

In selecting a sample of organizations to explore the above questions, we targetedpublic agencies that had recent experience with substantial planned change. We chosepublic welfare agencies, as these types of organizations are being driven to change bythe federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996(commonly known as the Welfare Reform Act). For decades, public assistance eligi-bility determination was the major programmatic focus of state and local welfareoffices. Now, such offices are expected to be agents of personal change for their clients,assisting them in preparing for life without welfare pursuant to shifts in federal policyon public assistance (Meyers, Glaser, & MacDonald, 1998). This shift in policy directsa change in the day-to-day work of welfare agencies. Although this policy shift repre-sents a force imposed on agencies from the external environment, it also represents an


imperative for planned organizational change. Thus, welfare agencies presented a richopportunity to explore how participation in planned change is viewed and practiced inthe public sector.

The authors wrote letters to the secretaries of welfare in six states asking for theirparticipation in the study, but only two state secretaries agreed to participate.1 Theother four states declined, citing concerns over having their employees questionedabout internal agency practices and the transition of employees during this period ofchange. The states that agreed to participate appeared to be genuinely interested, coop-erated with our requests, and seemed eager to see an analysis of the dynamics of theirchange efforts. We promised the secretaries that their states would be anonymous, aswould the questionnaires we were requesting them and their employees to complete.One state is in the Midwest (State A) and one, in the East (State B).

We asked the secretaries to provide an organizational chart of their agency and todesignate the titles of all executive-level staff who were central to the planning anddecision-making processes regarding the states’ response to the Welfare Reform Act.Using the organizational charts, we selected the population of decision-making execu-tives to be surveyed. We then distributed our instrument (described below) to theseexecutives with a note from the secretaries endorsing the study. Eighteen state execu-tives in State A and 7 in State B agreed to complete questionnaires (Table 1).

As shown in Table 1, we did secure cooperation from a large proportion of the popu-lation of state-level executives identified as having formal authority for decision mak-ing and policy making on welfare issues in these two states. Given this response, wethink that our sample is substantially representative of these state-level executives.

The state-level officials also assisted us in identifying and securing the cooperationof local-level welfare agencies. The relationship between these agencies and the stateis somewhat complex. During our initial discussions with these local agencies, someperceived themselves as direct entities of the state. Others proclaimed operationalautonomy from the state. Clearly, there is some ambiguity about the intergovernmentallines of authority in these agencies. In any event, these local agencies represent the“street level bureaucrats” (Lipsky, 1980); they are responsible for implementing pol-icy changes made at the state and federal levels. Our research instrument was distrib-uted to welfare case workers and supervisors in these local agencies by the secretariesalong with a letter of approval.

We did not have the resources available in this exploratory study to sample everycounty in both states or even to sample a large number. With the help of state officials,


Table 1. Survey Sample and Response

State A State B

Sample Response Sample Response

Executives (state level) 28 18 10 7Employees (county level) 140 94 62 45Total 168 112 72 52Response Rate 66.7% 72.2%

we divided the counties into two primary groups by population and geography, that is,large urban and smaller rural counties. We randomly sampled from the population ofcaseworkers in each group, stratified according to job function and specialization. Wereceived 94 usable questionnaires from local-level welfare employees in State A and45 from State B (Table 1). Although participation in the study was encouraged by theletter that accompanied our questionnaire, participation was voluntary.

We acknowledge that our sample of local-level welfare employees cannot bethought of as strictly representative of the population of these employees. Again, wedid not have the resources available to produce a statistically generalizable sample ofemployees from these numerous and diverse local welfare agencies. Our samplingstrategy was informed by organizational analysis and audit techniques developed byMackenzie (1986) and utilized by researchers such as Zajac and Comfort (1997) tomap change processes in large and complex sets of organizations. The respondents inour study should be thought of as key informants within the agencies, representing arange of core job functions and organizational divisions. This sampling approach pro-duces a picture of an agency that can serve the needs of exploratory organizationalanalysis. All survey activity took place during the latter half of 1998.

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

The questionnaire we developed for this study was divided into three parts and ispresented in the appendix. Part 1 asked about the extent to which the respondentsbelieved that employees should participate in planned change and the extent to whichemployees in the agency actually do participate. Welfare employees’ satisfaction withparticipation was also assessed. Perceptions of benefits and problems associated withparticipation were also solicited. Part 2 consisted of a 20-item scale designed to mea-sure the moral framework in which welfare employees view participation, as per theearlier discussion of the five moral frameworks (deontology, consequentialism,Rawlsian ethics, self-actualizing virtue, and elitist virtue). Part 3 collected demo-graphic information.

The Likert-type moral framework scale was constructed for this study. Ideally, wewould have used an existing index of morality that had already undergone rigorous val-idation, such as the Defining Issues Test (Rest, 1979), but this scale did not satisfy ourinterest in assessing the moral attitudes of public sector workers toward participationin planned change. We pretested the scale on a sample of 17 individuals (students andstate employees from agencies unrelated to this study). The reliability analysis of thescale produced an alpha of .51. Although this is not as high as we would have hoped,this was the first attempt to construct such a scale. Future efforts at measuring moralframeworks regarding participation in change can benefit from our efforts.

The primary reason for sampling from among state-level executives and local-levelemployees was to explore possible differences in moral frameworks between high-level decision makers who have the formal authority and responsibility for setting theagenda for change and street-level bureaucrats who are the objects of change efforts. Ifsuch differences existed, we wanted to explore how they might influence the dynamicsof the change process within the public welfare system.


Results

DEMOGRAPHICS

Table 2 presents selected demographic characteristics of the respondents. Overall,the respondents in State A were younger, largely female, less educated, and with feweryears of service in the agency than the respondents in State B. The racial compositionwas comparable in both states.

MORAL FRAMEWORK AND PARTICIPATION

The respondents to our survey were administered the aforementioned scale toexplore the moral frameworks within which they think about participation in plannedorganizational change. Respondents’ agreement with the five moral frameworksexamined by this study are reported here on a 5-point scale in which 1 = strong rejec-tion of a framework and 5 = strong acceptance of a framework. Table 3 shows that therespondents were most strongly Rawlsian in their approach to participation, withmean agreement of 3.08. Consequentialism was also a common approach to thinkingabout participation, with a score of 2.98. The self-actualizing virtue approach scored2.96. The deontological approach scored 2.82. Finally, the elitist virtue frameworkengendered the least agreement, with a score of 2.07. Table 3 shows that the means forboth states were similar, although the respondents in State B were more likely to agreewith deontology and less likely to agree with consequentialism.

Our analysis also found that there was no statistically significant difference inresponses between state-level executives and local-level employees; thus, they share acommon moral orientation toward participation. Consequently, differences in moralframework between executives and employees could not serve as a meaningfulcovariable in the subsequent analysis of reported levels of participation in these agen-


Table 2. Respondents’ Demographics

State A State B

n % n %

GenderMale 35 34.0 33 66.0Female 68 66.0 17 34.0

RaceBlack 11 9.8 6 13.0White 94 84.0 38 82.6Hispanic 3 2.7 0 0.0Other 4 3.6 2 4.4

Age 111 M = 46.4 years 48 M = 51.6 yearsLevel of education

Associate or less 41 36.6 3 6.1Bachelor’s 45 40.2 28 57.1Master’s 24 21.4 17 34.7Doctorate 2 1.8 1 2.0

Service 112 M = 19.2 years 51 M = 25.9 years

cies. This finding is important in that it suggests a basic congruence of thought on themorality of participation between the executives and employees in these states.

On the whole, our respondents tended to frame participation in terms of whatarrangements would produce favorable outcomes for disadvantaged groups within theagency. They were also concerned with producing good outcomes in general and withusing participatory schemes to help individuals develop to their full potential. Theywere relatively less concerned with establishing blanket rights to participation, andthey clearly rejected the notion that only the “best” should have the privilege of partici-pation. The respondents seemed to conceive of participation in planned change as ameans to empower individuals or groups that may be on the periphery of the organiza-tional polis. Participation for them may be a tool for constructive social change ratherthan something akin to a protected universal right or a prerogative of the powerful.Given that many of the respondents began their human services careers in the early1970s, their attitudes toward participation may have been shaped by the shiftingsociopolitical attitudes toward diversity and inclusion characteristic of that time.

BELIEFS ABOUT ROLES IN PARTICIPATIONAND ACTUAL PARTICIPATION

As per the description of Part 1 of the instrument, respondents were asked to indi-cate the extent to which they (a) believed that employees should participate in plannedchange (Table 4) and (b) think employees actually participate in change (Table 5).


Table 3. Respondents’ Moral Frameworks (mean scores)

States A and B State A State BMoral Framework (N = 163) (N = 111) (N = 52)

Rawlsian 3.08 3.09 3.06Consequentialism 2.98 3.06 2.83Deontological 2.82 2.56 3.36Self-actualizing virtue 2.96 2.93 3.01Elitist virtue 2.07 2.11 1.98

Note. Responses were given on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strong rejection of a framework) to 5 (strongacceptance of a framework).

Table 4. Respondents’ Assessment of Expected Participationin Planned Change in Their Agencies

Phase of Change Process n M

To what extent do you think employees should participate in:decisions about which aspects of the agency to change 111 3.34generating possible alternatives for change 111 3.55selecting specific alternatives to be implemented 112 2.99planning the implementation 112 3.38participating in the actual hands-on implementation 112 3.65evaluating the outcomes of the change 109 3.14

Note. Responses were given on a 4-point scale in which 1 = not at all, 2 = little extent, 3 = moderate extent,4 = great extent.

We received usable responses to this section of the instrument from a maximum of112 respondents (not all respondents completed all items; see Tables 4 and 5 for sam-ple sizes). The respondents believed that employees should be permitted to participateto some extent in planned organizational change, even if such participation is not con-strued as a strong right. Given the findings presented above, it is likely that thesebeliefs about participation were conditioned by the perceived distribution of benefitsof such participation.

The variance between the six subprocesses of organizational change was notextreme. The respondents showed the greatest support for employee participation inimplementing change. They also supported employee participation in generatingalternatives and planning the change. They were marginally less supportive ofemployee participation in deciding which aspects of the organization need to bechanged and in selecting alternatives. Clearly, the generation of alternatives and plan-ning and implementation are critical aspects of the change process, but so are decisionsabout which aspects of the organization need to be changed and the selection of alter-natives for change. Indeed, these last two subprocesses define the parameters of howchange will proceed within an organization. The respondents seemed somewhat hesi-tant about opening these change processes to widespread employee participation.

Whereas the respondents indicated strong support for employee participation inplanned change, they reported that actual levels of participation by employees aresomewhat low. Again, there was little variance in reported levels of participationacross the six subprocesses. The respondents indicated that employees participatemost widely in the implementation of change. Relatively less participation occurs inthe critical phase of deciding what to change and in the generation and selection ofalternatives. Thus, it would seem that the “grunt work” of participation (implementa-tion) is open to employee participation but that the processes that define the actualscope and nature of change within an organization are less open to employee input.Whether this is due to resistance by management or lack of interest on the part ofemployees is unclear.

BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH PARTICIPATION

The respondents were also asked about the extent to which they believed thatemployee participation in planned change produces good outcomes or problems for


Table 5. Respondents’ Assessment of Actual Level of Participationin Planned Change in Their Agencies

Phase of Change Process n M

To what extent do you think employees do participate in:decisions about which aspects of the agency to change 110 1.33generating possible alternatives for change 110 1.35selecting specific alternatives to be implemented 108 1.37planning the implementation 109 1.33participating in the actual hands-on implementation 109 1.74evaluating the outcomes of the change 108 1.36

Note. Responses were given on a 3-point scale in which 1 = too little, 2 = just about right, 3 = too much.

welfare agencies. As shown in Table 6, the respondents evidenced a reasonably strongbelief that participation produces good outcomes for the agency. They did have someconcern, though, that participation may also create problems for the agency.

In addition to the scalar measurement of beliefs about good outcomes and problemsresulting from participation, the respondents were asked to provide open-ended com-ments about their perceptions of the benefits and problems associated with employeesparticipating in planned change. Table 7 shows a list of the benefits and problems thatwere perceived as resulting from employee participation in planned organizationalchange.

The most prominent benefit of participation noted by the respondents was that par-ticipation ensures “buy-in” by employees to the process of planned change.Employees were thought to have a greater commitment and accountability to success-ful change if they actually have an active role in structuring this change. The respon-dents also thought that employees have a more practical view of the organization andits problems than management, thereby making their contributions to change invalu-able. Finally, respondents felt that participation is important for the job development ofthe employees who participate, making them more skillful problem solvers. This viewechoes the finding regarding the self-actualizing moral framework discussed above.

The respondents viewed employee participation as time consuming, though, divert-ing employees’ attention from client services and other primary job duties. Therespondents also thought that problems arise when suggestions offered by employeesare not accepted by management, raising false expectations about the extent of partici-pation. The respondents noted that dissension, organizational fragmentation, and cyn-icism may result from unrealized expectations. Respondents also thought bothemployees and management may suffer from limitations that impair their ability todeal with participation constructively. These limitations include insufficient knowl-edge, inability to compromise, and unwillingness to put aside personal agendas.

Discussion

The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 provided an opportunity to study the attitudes andpractices of public servants about employees’ participation in planned organizationalchange. We initially targeted six state welfare agencies in different parts of the countryto see if geography influenced these attitudes and practices. However, because all ofthe agencies were undergoing reengineering, the agencies in four of the states were


Table 6. Respondents’ Assessment of Benefits and Problems of Participationin Planned Organizational Change

n M

Overall, to what extent do you think that employee participationin planned organizational change:produces good outcomes for the agency 108 3.52produces problems for the agency 109 2.33

Note. Responses were given on a 4-point scale in which 1 = not at all, 2 = little extent, 3 = moderate extent,4 = great extent.

reluctant to permit a study of their change processes. We did secure cooperation in ourstudy from two states, one (State A) in the Midwest that was an early adopter of wel-fare reform and one (State B) in the East that was at the time of our study undergoingchange more slowly in a politically conservative environment. We expected thatemployees in State A would not only be stronger advocates of participation in changethan State B but would actually report extensive participation in change. We found thatemployees in both states participated extensively in implementing changes (mean =1.74) but played a relatively lesser role in the planning and directing of change (mean =1.33) (Table 5).

There are a number of advocates for greater participation of employees in all phasesof decision making in organizations. Nyhan (2000) has empirically tested the proposi-tion that the empowerment and increased participation of employees in public sectormanagement builds trust between supervisors and employees and leads to increasedproductivity and strengthened organizational commitment. All respondents (execu-tives and employees) in both states subscribed to the tenets of Rawlsian justice-based


Table 7. Respondents’ Perceptions of Benefits and Problems Resulting FromEmployee Participation in Planned Change

Benefit Problem

Ensures “buy-in”Employees have greater commitment to and

cooperation with changeChange more likely to succeedEmployee ownership of changeStaff accepts change betterEmployees feel a part of the teamSense of partnership with managementIncreased moraleMotivationTrustEnthusiasmJob satisfactionCreate ideasEncourages practical view of changeReveals problems not seen by managementEmployees know nuts and bolts of programEmployee understanding of client needsMore client-focused outcomesEmployees see “whole picture”Promotes job developmentDevelops employee skillsEmployees become problem solversIncreases accountabilityHold policy makers and administration

accountable for understanding the impactof change

Increases employee creativityEmpowers employees

Time intensiveUnion agenda and choice of representatives limit

diversity of viewsNot all suggestions can be acceptedRaises false expectationsThose not involved feel disenfranchisedParticipation by employees may be biased by how

change will affect their jobsEmployees limit focus to their job levelEmployees too close to problemsTake time from client serviceCan cause dissension and fragmentationUnwillingness of employees to accept critique of

their participationCynicism when change does not happenPressures for quick fixesManagement does not listenManagement involved employees but use only

their own ideas (cosmetic participation)Employees want to participate in all decisionsEmployees may not be risk takersEmployees may not see “big picture”Employees may lack sufficient knowledge and

experienceProcess can become bogged down in detail

Note. Items are listed in hierarchical order of response.

participation; that is, they believed in participation even if it hampered the smoothoperation of planned change. This in some sense represents the espoused theory of par-ticipation within these agencies (Argyris & Schon, 1996). However, we found thatthese beliefs were not currently in practice. This represents the theory-in-use of theseagencies. Thus, we must conclude that there is a break between the espoused theoryand the theory-in-use within these agencies.

Participation is an important trust-building activity, especially in reducing the risksemployees experience when an organization undergoes rapid and sudden change, as isthe case in many states adopting new welfare policies and restructuring state agencies(McLain & Hackman, 1999). Indeed, Hosmer (1995) argued that there is a theoreticalconnection, through trust, between the moral duty of managers and the output perfor-mance of organizations. This raises the question once again as to whether employeeparticipation is morally required (Zajac & Bruhn, 1999).

Our preliminary findings need to be tested more extensively in more state welfareagencies—perhaps those that have completed their restructuring—and in other typesof public agencies as well. On the basis of our findings, we would recommend thatwelfare agencies experiment with and evaluate the process and outcome of greateremployee participation in organizational planning. Welfare reform offers such anopportunity.

Conclusion

The individuals who participated in our study, both state-level executives andcounty-level welfare employees, were alike with respect to their moral approach toparticipation in planned change: A majority were Rawlsian. Respondents believed thatemployees should be permitted to participate in all aspects of planned organizationalchange. The respondents were also concerned with the consequences of participationfor the success of the change efforts. Thus, there is an emphasis among these respon-dents on opening the planned change process not only to employees in general but spe-cifically to employees who may stand to gain or lose the most from the change efforts.The actual levels of employee participation in planned change within these agencies,however, was low in both states. Employee participation seems to be construed as aright, although this right does not seem to be fully enabled within these agencies. Themoral framework of these respondents appears to be an amalgam of Rawlsian, rights-based thinking regarding participation and consequentialist concerns over the practi-cal realities of managing an agency. This may result in a utilization of participatorychange mechanisms that is something less than the ideal espoused by the individualsincluded in this study.

There was also some concern that employees often limit the focus of change to theirlevel of the organization and want quick fixes to problems. As a result, having employ-ees participate in all phases of organizational change might raise their expectationsunrealistically. By the same token, the respondents stated that employees know andunderstand client needs and that, therefore, their input is important. All of this said, theagencies did not involve their employees as fully as might be possible in all phases oforganizational change.


Several policy recommendations can be derived from this study. These recommen-dations should be thought of as suggestive rather than definitive, given the exploratorynature of this work. First, it is important for agencies undergoing change to examinethe attitudes of their employees toward participation. Although we found relativelystrong conceptual support for participation, agencies should not assume that participa-tion is a desideratum for all employees. Rather, agencies should assess employees’perceptions about what constitutes a meaningful and just level and scope of participa-tion. It is especially important to determine how employee attitudes toward participa-tion vary among the phases of planned change efforts. An agency that promotes wide-spread employee participation only after the decisions about the scope of the changehave been made from above may actually be accomplishing little in terms of enhancingemployee morale and organizational performance. This can be done throughemployee surveys of attitudes toward participation, perhaps utilizing a variant of theinstrument used for this study. Employee satisfaction with participation should also beevaluated after each planned change initiative. Such inquiry can inform the develop-ment of a productive and effective culture of participation within the organization.

Related to this, agencies should also evaluate the successes and failures of partici-pation in previous planned change efforts. The respondents to our study clearly evi-denced some concern that participation may have negative consequences for the pro-ductivity and performance of the agency. The results of evaluation can also contributeto the evolution of a healthy culture of participation.

Agencies should also undertake training for employees in how to participate effec-tively and fairly in planned change efforts. Even with the best of intentions, someemployees may enter the change process with few skills for decision making, negotia-tion, and consensus building. Indeed, agency executives may also be deficient in theseskills.

Finally, agencies should recognize that employee participation is a complex andfluid process that may be constrained by limited resources and time and environmentalpressures. Agencies need to be prepared to explain and defend their strategies for par-ticipation to the public, clients, political officials, and their employees. This speaks tothe development of rational and workable strategies for participation that are informedby ideals and by reality.

We realize our study is limited by having the participation of only two states,although they are in different geographic regions of the country. These two states haverestructured their welfare departments and have more progressive views about thedelivery of welfare services. The findings from our study should not be generalizeduntil other studies of welfare departments in other geographic regions of the countryare obtained.

Future research on this topic should explore the moral aspects of participation in alarger and more diverse set of public agencies. We believe that this study lays a usefulfoundation for such inquiry.


APPENDIXResearch Instrument

Part 1: Employee Participation in PlannedOrganizational Change in Welfare Agencies

This survey presents you with a set of questions about planned organizational change in pub-lic welfare agencies. Again, by planned organizational change, we mean deliberate actionstaken by agencies to bring about changes in any feature of the organization. This is not changethat simply “happens.” Planned change is often undertaken in response to demands from outsidethe organizations or to resource constraints or other problems facing the organization. For exam-ple, welfare agencies have had to institute changes in policies, programs, and procedures overthe past year in response to changes in federal welfare laws and policies. Please answer the ques-tions in this survey with these types of changes in mind, although you are not limited to thinkingabout this specific example of planned organizational change.

The first part of this questionnaire asks about (a) the extent to which you think that employ-ees of public welfare agencies should be permitted to participate in planned organizationalchange and (b) benefits and problems arising from employee participation in such change. Byemployees, we typically mean nonsupervisory employees at the state level as well as all employ-ees at the county/local-level offices. Please consider these two types of employees as a groupwhen answering the questions in Part 1. For each question, please circle the item that bestreflects your answer.

1. To what extent do you think that employees should be permitted to participate in decisionsabout which aspects of the agency need to be changed?

Not at all Little extent Moderate extent Great extent

2. To what extent do you think that employees should be permitted to participate in generatingpossible alternatives for planned organizational change?


3. To what extent do you think that employees should be permitted to participate in selectingspecific alternatives to be implemented in planned organizational change efforts?


4. To what extent do you think that employees should be permitted to participate in planningthe actual implementation of organizational change?


5. To what extent do you think that employees should be permitted to participate in the actual,“hands-on” implementation of planned organizational change?


6. To what extent do you think that employees should be permitted to participate in evaluatingthe outcomes of planned organizational change?



7. How would you characterize the actual level of employee participation in planned organiza-tional change in your state’s welfare agencies?

7a. Deciding what needs to be changed? Too much Just about right Too little

7b. Generating alternatives? Too much Just about right Too little

7c. Selecting alternatives to be implemented? Too much Just about right Too little

7d. Planning implementation of the changes? Too much Just about right Too little

7e. Actually implementing the changes? Too much Just about right Too little

7f. Evaluating the changes? Too much Just about right Too little

8. Overall, to what extent do you think that employee participation in planned organizationalchange produces good outcomes for welfare agencies?


9. Overall, to what extent do you believe that employee participation in planned organizationalchange produces problems for welfare agencies?


10. In the space below, please tell us what you think are the most important benefits and prob-lems resulting from employee participation in planned organizational change in welfareagencies.

Benefits Problems

Part 2: Individual Beliefs About EmployeeParticipation in Planned Organizational Change

This section of the questionnaire asks whether you personally agree or disagree with a set ofstatements about employee participation in planned organizational change. For each of the ques-tions, please use the following scale and circle the letter that best reflects your answer.

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree(SD) (D) (N) (A) (SA)

1. Employees should not automatically expect to be included inplanned organizational change efforts. SD D N A SA

2. Management should not be allowed to include only employeeswho are thought to deserve to participate. SD D N A SA

3. Processes of employee participation in planned organizationalchange should not be complicated by concerns forequal opportunity. SD D N A SA

4. Certain employees always deserve to participate in plannedorganizational change, others don’t. SD D N A SA


5. Employees should be encouraged to participate in plannedorganizational change even if it appears that participationwill jeopardize the success of the change process. SD D N A SA

6. Only the most intelligent and competent employees shouldbe permitted to participate in planned organizational change. SD D N A SA

7. Employee participation should occur only if it is likely thatthe process of planned change will be enhanced by suchparticipation. SD D N A SA

8. Management should not be permitted to restrict the partici-pation of employees under any circumstances. SD D N A SA

9. Employees who probably won’t experience personal growthand development from participating in planned organizationalchange should be encouraged to participate in it anyway. SD D N A SA

10. Participation in planned organizational change is a privilegeto be earned by employees. SD D N A SA

11. Agency executives should not care if the organization willbenefit from employee participation in planned organiza-tional change. SD D N A SA

12. Personal development is as important as organizationaldevelopment as a goal of employee participation in plannedorganizational change. SD D N A SA

13. Participation in planned organizational change should bestructured to maximize opportunities for contributions bydisadvantaged employees. SD D N A SA

14. Employee participation in planned organizational changeshould be permitted only where it will be productive forthe organization. SD D N A SA

15. Special efforts should be made to encourage the participationof employees who have typically been excluded fromorganizational change efforts. SD D N A SA

16. Employee participation in planned organizational change isworthwhile only if the change process succeeds as a resultof the participation. SD D N A SA

17. Employee participation in planned organizational changeefforts should be geared towards serving the needs oflow-status employees. SD D N A SA

18. Participation by employees in planned organizational changeshould be encouraged primarily where it will result in themoral or intellectual betterment of the individual participant. SD D N A SA

19. All employees have an equal, absolute right to participate inall cases of planned organizational change. SD D N A SA

20. Participation by employees in planned organizational changeshould be structured to allow employees to improve them-selves, even if it makes the change process more difficult forthe organization. SD D N A SA


Part 3: Demographic Data

This final section asks some basic questions about yourself.

1. How long have you been employed by your agency (in years)? ________________

2. What is your job title? _____________________________________________________

3. What is your age (in years)? _____________

4. Are you: Male _______ Female_______

5. Which of the following best describes your race (please circle only one)?

A. African American D. Latino/HispanicB. Asian American E. Native AmericanC. Caucasian (White) F. Other

6. What is your highest level of education (please circle only one)?

A. High school or less D. Master’s degreeB. Associate degree E. Ph.D. or other doctorate degreeC. Bachelor’s degree F. Other

7. In what field is your highest degree? __________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS SURVEY

Note

1. Of the four states that declined, three were in the East and one in the Southeast. The eastern state (StateB) that participated in the survey was representative relative to the three that declined. State A was the onlymidwestern state asked to participate. We regard the two states surveyed as representative of employees ofwelfare agencies in the United States.

References

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. New York:Addison-Wesley.

Axelrod, D. (1992). Getting everyone involved: How one organization involved its employees, supervisors,and managers in redesigning the organization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28, 499-509.

Besharov, D. J., & Germanis, P. (2000, Summer). Welfare reform—Four years later. Public Interest, 140, 17-35.Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Coffin, B. B. (1997). Will tough love work? Nieman Reports, 51(1), 46-48.Cooke, W. N. (1990, July). Factors influencing the effect of joint union-management programs on

employee-supervisor relations. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 43, 587-603.Covey, S. (1990). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Summit.Curtis, K. A. (1999). Welfare reform in Delaware: “A better chance” for whom? In S. F. Schram & S. H. Beer

(Eds.), Welfare reform: A race to the bottom? (pp. 139-156). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center.


De Pree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York: Dell.Epps, J. (1995, July-August). Respiriting organizations. Journal of Quality and Participation, 18, 40-47.Give this workplace a chance [Editorial]. (1996, May 20). Business Week, p. 118.Hansan, J. E., & Morris, R. (1999). Welfare reform: Next steps. In J. E. Hansan & R. Morris (Eds.), Welfare

reform, 1996-2000. Is there a safety net? Westport, CT: Auburn House.Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics.

Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379-403.Johnston, J. M., & Lindaman, K. (1999). Implementing welfare reform in Kansas: Moving, but not racing. In

S. F. Schram & S. H. Beer (Eds.), Welfare reform: A race to the bottom? (pp. 157-176). Washington, DC:Woodrow Wilson Center.

Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity and the reconstruction of workinglife. New York: Basic Books.

Kets de Vries, M.F.R., & Balazs, K. (1999). Transforming the mind-set of the organization: A clinical per-spective. Administration & Society, 30, 640-675.

Leana, C. R., & Florkowski, G. W. (1992). Employee involvement programs: Integrating psychological the-ory and management practice. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel andhuman resources management (Vol. 10, pp. 233-270). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Lieberman, R. C., & Shaw, G. M. (2000). Looking inward, looking outward: The politics of state welfareinnovation under devolution. Political Research Quarterly, 53(2), 215-240.

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: RussellSage.

Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participation in decision making: One more look. In B. Staw(Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 265-339). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Lyth, I. M. (1991). Changing organizations and individuals: Psychoanalytic insights for improving organi-zational health. In M.F.R. Kets de Vries & Associates (Eds.), Organizations on the couch (pp. 361-378).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mackenzie, K. D. (1986). Organizational design: The organizational audit and analysis technology.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Maslow, A. H. (1998). Maslow on management. New York: Wiley.McLain, D. L., & Hackman, K. (1999, Summer). Trust, risk, and decision-making in organizational change.

Public Affairs Quarterly, 152-176.Meyers, M. K., Glaser, B., & MacDonald, K. (1998). On the front lines of welfare delivery: Are workers

implementing policy reforms? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17(1), 1-22.Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986, December). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-ana-

lytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 723-727.Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a planned organi-

zational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 59-80.Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: Free Press.Norris, D. F., & Thompson, L. (Eds.). (1995). The politics of welfare reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Nurick, A. (1994). Participation in organizational change: A longitudinal field study. In J. Bowditch &

A. Buono (Eds.), A primer on organizational behavior (pp. 484-499). New York: Wiley.Nutt, P. (1992). Helping top management avoid failure during planned change. Human Resource Manage-

ment, 31, 319-344.Nyhan, R. C. (2000). Changing the paradigm: Trust and its role in public sector organizations. American

Review of Public Administration, 30(1), 87-109.O’Connor, E. S. (1995). Paradoxes of participation: Textual analysis and organizational change. Organiza-

tion Studies, 16(5), 769-803.O’Toole, J. (1995). Leading change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Rest, J. R. (1979). Revised manual for the defining issues test: An objective test on moral judgement develop-

ment. Minneapolis: Minnesota Moral Research Project.Rosen, R. H. (1991). The healthy company. New York: Putnam.Sagie, A., Elizur, D., & Koslowsky, M. (1990). Effect of participation in strategic and tactical decision on

acceptance of planned change. Journal of Social Psychology, 130(4), 459-465.


Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (1996). Decision type, organizational control, and acceptance of change: Anintegrative approach to participative decision making. Applied Psychology: An International Review,45(1), 85-92.

Sashkin, M. (1984). Participative management in an ethical imperative. Organizational Dynamics, 12(4), 5-22.

Schwochau, S., Delaney, J., Jarley, P., & Fiorito, J. (1997). Employee participation and assessments of sup-port for organizational policy changes. Journal of Labor Research, 18(3), 279-401.

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of change. New York:Currency.

Sheak, R. J., & Haydon, W. (1996). Real welfare reform requires jobs: Lessons from a progressive welfareagency. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 23(3), 91-111.

Weisbord, M. R. (1987). Productive workplaces: Organizing for dignity, meaning, and community. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Zajac, G., & Al-Kazemi, A. A. (1997). Reinventing government and redefining leadership: Implications forpersonnel management in government. Public Productivity & Management Review, 20, 372-383.

Zajac, G., & Bruhn, J. G. (1999). The moral context of participation in planned organizational change andlearning. Administration & Society, 30, 706-733.

Zajac, G., & Comfort, L. K. (1997). The spirit of watchfulness: Public ethics as organizational learning.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(4), 541-570.

John G. Bruhn, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor of health sciences at New Mexico StateUniversity. His interests are in organizational dynamics and the health of organizations.He has published numerous articles and books in the areas of management, leadership,stress, and the social aspects of organizations. Contact: [email protected]

Gary Zajac, Ph.D., is a fellow in public policy at the Center for Public Policy at TempleUniversity and conducts research on criminal justice for the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-vania. He has published articles on organizational ethics and change in journals such asthe Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Public Administration Quar-terly, and Public Productivity and Management Review.

Ali A. Al-Kazemi, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Public Administration atKuwait University. Professor Al-Kazemi’s teaching and research interests include finan-cial management, ethics, and privatization. He has published articles in journals such asPublic Productivity & Management Review and the International Journal of PublicAdministration.


PPMR / December 2001Miller, Harris / CASE: WHO PAYS? WHO DECIDES?

CASE AND COMMENTS

WHO PAYS? WHO DECIDES?

GERALD J. MILLERG.L.A. HARRISRutgers University

“No taxation without representation!” The cry comes from those opposed to taxesbut especially from those who feel that they have no say in budgets. Many summer res-idents, who own second homes in resort towns across America, are unable to votelocally. Yet, much of the tax revenue generated for such municipalities is derived fromthe collective wealth of summer residents’ properties. Part-time residence statusdenies some, or even many, the right to participate in the decision-making process oflocal politics.

Here, the city administrator for Xanadu faced a dilemma. In January 2001, a groupof people who owned summer homes in the seaside resort organized a tax reform com-mittee. The members objected to the recent property tax increase of 10%. But none ofthe members of the committee were legal residents of Xanadu for voting purposes. Allowned homes elsewhere and resided there for most of the year. The city administratorrealized that the state law affecting Xanadu, like most state laws, allowed citizens tochoose only one legal residence for voting. The committee showed that the summerpopulation was 65,000 whereas the year-round population was only 20,000. And, as agroup, the summer-only residents that the tax reform committee claimed to representowned a considerable proportion of the taxable property in Xanadu. “The majority isdisenfranchised,” said one tax reform committee member.

With that in mind, it was now the city administrator’s mandate to explore everyattempt at striking a palatable compromise among the interested parties becauseXanadu had received approximately 90% of all city revenue in property tax paymentsin the previous fiscal year.

But, to date, the first and only proposal offered by the tax reform committee was tothe city council. The proposal called for the council to recognize the committee mem-bers’ property rights by allowing the committee to legally veto any tax increases infuture budgets.

The council member most opposed to increased property taxes championed thecommittee’s proposal, writing an ordinance to hold referenda on tax increases. The


229

city administrator would certify as a voter anyone 18 or older who had paid propertytaxes the previous year. She stated that the property tax payers in America deserved avoice in the budget process but advised the city council that those who own summerhomes, lacking a vote, may sell their properties and leave town. This, she warned,could result in an economic depression.

The city administrator decided to consult with the city attorney to review the legal-ity of the owners’ proposed ordinance.

But the city administrator also had to contend with a vocal faction opposed to theordinance who immediately stated their desire to table the ordinance indefinitelywhether the city attorney reported the referendum idea a legal one or not. They statedthat budgets had led to public projects and services that had enhanced property val-ues—and therefore the wealth—of everyone. Budgets had also made Xanadu a resortso attractive that people would invest more in a vacation house there than in their pri-mary residence elsewhere. They asked why the tax reform committee members did notchange their legal residence to Xanadu. Opponents also argued that the principle ofvoting rights based on property tax payment was a discredited legal relic of the 1800s,when many local governments allowed only taxpayers to vote. Finally, opponentswarned that renters would be entitled to vote, opening the door to extending votingrights to summer leaseholders, including seasonal resort workers. “Where will it allend?” they asked. Soon, even people renting cars and people staying in hotels mightdemand a say in budgets, because they paid transient taxes as well.

The next council meeting is in a week. The administrator already knows that a size-able group of summer residents are planning on attending, and she suspects that thelocals will be out in force too. It is not going to be pleasant, but she needs to come upwith some strategy. But what? How can the city administrator appease both groupswithout jeopardizing the interests of all in the municipality?

Gerald J. Miller is an associate professor in public administration at Rutgers Universityin Newark, New Jersey, and has published widely on government financial managementissues. Contact: [email protected].

G.L.A. Harris is a doctoral candidate in public administration at Rutgers University withinterests in government performance systems. Contact: [email protected].


PPMR / December 2001COMMENTS ON THE CASE STUDY

WHAT’S WRONG AND WHATSHOULD BE DONE?

Comments on the Case Study

DENNIS E. GALE

This case raises fundamental questions about the legal underpinnings of citizen-ship, voting rights, and tax liabilities at the municipal level. It also illustrates a particu-lar dilemma among communities that have a large seasonal residential population.Several seasonal inhabitants of Xanadu argue that they are tax-paying property ownersbut, by virtue of their non-full-time residential status, they are disenfranchised becausethey are not allowed to vote in local elections. The lack of a vote denies them the oppor-tunity to participate in municipal elections, they argue. (In effect, nonresident taxpay-ers are making the “taxation without representation” plea.) To remedy this situation,they have asked that a committee made up of several nonresident taxpayers be estab-lished with the power to veto future tax increases. A sympathetic council member pro-poses another alternative: put all tax increases to a referendum and permit any propertyowner aged 18 or older to vote.

Xanadu residents oppose this proposal. They insist that a dangerous precedentwould be established, implying that the principle of full-time residency as a precondi-tion for voting rights would be abridged. Instead, one would only have to own propertyin Xanadu to be eligible to vote in municipal elections and referenda. Would property-owning status undermine the conventional principle of full-time residential status?They note that disgruntled part-time property owners have the same option that full-time owners have: to sell their property and move away or to legally declare Xanadutheir full-time residence.

How can the administrator appease both groups? Setting aside any legal prohibi-tions that may exist, there are several options:

1. Defuse the situation: Instead of funding the needed additional revenues from the prop-erty tax, Xanadu could seek alternative sources. The council might be able to increaserevenues by raising existing fees and/or fines or creating new ones. They might considerenhancing local option sales taxes, if this is permitted by state law. Excess town propertymight be sold. Depending on the needed expenditures, federal or state transfer paymentsmight be used. Or, cuts in other areas of the budget might be considered to offset newexpenditure increases.

2. Advisory committee: A nonresident advisory committee could be established by coun-cil. The committee could be given nonbinding power to recommend actions related tothe budget to the council. This would give nonresident property owners an ongoing offi-cial voice in town budgetary matters.

3. Nonbinding referenda: Perhaps the council could permit nonresident property ownersto vote only in nonbinding referenda related to municipal budgetary matters. (Under this


231

option, nonresident owners would not be able to vote in municipal elections, bindingreferenda, or nonbinding referenda on any subject other than municipal budgetaryissues.) However, the danger here is in “creeping permissiveness.” Over the years,options could be expanded to the point that nonresident property owners would enjoyrights and privileges similar to those of full-time residents.

Dennis E. Gale is a professor of public administration and director of the Joseph C.Cornwall Center for Metropolitan Studies at Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey.Contact: [email protected].

JERRY A. GIANAKIS

The separation of the act of paying for government services and the processes ofdeciding what and how much government should produce virtually guarantees thatgovernment will spend your money for something that you do not want. This includesraising taxes. In my own cosmology, it is the responsibility of the professional publicmanager to optimize the public interest as defined by the political community thatemploys him or her to exercise a particular type of expertise. Local government organi-zations manifest a wide range of expertise, and these professionals, as a community ofprofessionals, should seek to engage the entire political community in an ongoingeffort to determine the public interest. This is not possible when particular managersengage specific constituencies.

One of the issues in this case is defining the political community, and it would seemthat most of the part-time residents have opted out of the political community definedby the jurisdiction of Xanadu. Certainly, professional public administrators shouldalso seek to bring forward the views of groups that have been disenfranchised or feelineffectual in the political processes of defining the public interest. The difference hereis that the part-time residents have voluntarily opted out of the process by choosing tojoin other political communities. Professional public managers must often bargain andnegotiate with other jurisdictions to optimize the welfare of their own, but I do not seehow the part-time residents of Xanadu have any claims to the expertise of the profes-sionals who manage the jurisdiction.

The legal basis of the proposal submitted to the city council by the self-appointedrepresentatives of the part-time residents is tenuous at best. In Londoner v. City of Den-ver (210 U.S. 373 [1908]), the Supreme Court ruled that if the state delegates the powerto affect the property or liberty interests of a person to a private body, those personsaffected have the right to notice and comment, including oral presentations. Thiswould greatly burden the budget process. In Bi-metallic Investment Company v. StateBoard of Equalization (239 U.S. 441 [1915]), the Supreme Court held that a hearing isnot required unless a small number of people are individually and exceptionallyaffected by the actions under consideration. Thus, the “tax reform committee” has nobasis for demanding that the council recognize the property rights of the part-time resi-


dents by allowing the committee to veto any tax increases in future budgets. All of theresidents are equally affected, and no private body is involved in apportioning burdens.Unless Xanadu is a charter city, it would appear that state laws regarding legal resi-dence for voting would also be violated if the motion of the council member who sup-ported the tax cuts were adopted. Thus, one strategy would be to delay the whole thingwith additional study, perhaps a study of assessment practices, until the city attorneycould render the entire issue officially moot.

There are additional value issues that must be considered. The part-time residentsenjoy additional tax benefits through ownership of second residences. They can deductthe additional property taxes and mortgage interest from their state and federal incometaxes, and they may reap additional income through renting the property. The propertytax tends to be progressive when wealth is used as the base; and it is also progressivewhen income is used as the base, except in the case of young persons and the elderly,who often devote a higher percentage of their incomes to housing. The degree of pro-gressiveness in a tax system is a basic value issue that should be determined by thepolitical community. The professional manager has an educative role here, becauseprogressiveness affects the long-term financial viability of the jurisdiction, and citi-zens and elected officials do not often look to the long term. It is highly unlikely thatthe current tax system would drive the part-timers away from their seaside residencesand plunge the city into economic depression. Cities tend to be more heterogeneous inwealth and income than would be predicted by simple models based on economic self-interest. The real estate mantra also holds here: location, location, location.

The part-timers are also relieved of any enterprise charges when their homes areunoccupied as well as related taxes such as franchise, utility, and telecommunicationsaccess. The city, however, does not appear to structure many services as enterprisefunds, and not much of the yield from the above revenue sources makes its way into thecity’s budget process. Xanadu received approximately 90% of all city revenue in prop-erty tax collections in the previous fiscal year. The lack of diversity in the revenue baseof the city would seem to constitute the most salient issue in the case. At least onecouncil member feels that the “no tax increases” slogan would resonate through thecity as a whole. On the other hand, the present situation would appear to benefit thefull-time residents. Assuming that all homes are of equal value, the part-timers wouldpay about 70% of the property taxes. Thus, the full-time residents receive $1.00 in ser-vices for every 30¢ they pay in property taxes.

The “vocal faction opposed to the ordinance” is correct in pointing out the connec-tion between public projects and services funded through the property tax and propertyvalues. The taxes and the projects and services funded through them, if properly man-aged, constitute an investment that ultimately increases the wealth of the taxpayers.This is illustrated clearly in the case of impact fees. A large housing development isconstructed, and the houses sell for a certain price partly because of the quality of theexisting infrastructure and available services. However, the project itself lowers theservice levels and strains the infrastructure that attracted the home buyers and, thus,lowers their property values as soon as they move in. Impact fees are charged to main-tain the capital infrastructure and services at the levels that attracted the buyers, and

COMMENTS ON THE CASE STUDY 233

this protects their initial investment. Local income taxes were also initially imple-mented in Philadelphia to force commuters from four states to pay some share of theinfrastructure and services they made necessary, but the cost of which they escaped.Thus further weakens the “taxation without representation” argument.

However, the long-term financial viability of the city would probably be enhancedthrough diversification of its revenue base. Services that are funded through propertytaxes should be structured as self-supporting enterprise funds whenever possible. Userfees should be considered for selected services. Business-based taxes such as occupa-tional licenses should also be explored. Enterprise funds and user fees help rationalizethe budget process by signaling demand and forcing efficiencies. The separation ofpayer and decider renders these ends problematic. A reduction on reliance on the prop-erty tax would assuage the concerns of the part-time residents and also benefit the full-time residents. The efficient and responsive operation of current services has a directeffect on the long-term financial viability of the jurisdiction, and this is a core responsi-bility of the professional administrator.

If the city administrator desires to appease the part-timers, several technical adjust-ments could be made to the property tax system. Part-time residences could be classi-fied differently than full-time residences and either taxed at a different rate or assessedat a percentage that is less than full value. This could be prorated on the basis of lengthof residence. Property that is rented when not occupied by the owner would beexcluded. The reduction could also reflect the costs of only those services foregonewhen not in residence. However, police and fire constitute a large part of the operatingbudgets of most jurisdictions, and these would probably continue whether the resi-dence was empty or occupied. The administrator could also exempt the first $10,000 or$20,000 of the value of the part-time property from taxation as a way of throwing abone to the tax committee. However, given that the part-timers pay 70% of the propertytax, these actions could have enormous repercussions on current services. If all housescost $100,000, and a $20,000 exemption is granted to part-time occupants, the part-timers assume 56% of the tax burden and a 10% tax increase becomes an 8.6% taxincrease. Differential assessments, exemptions, and classification systems alsoincrease the administrative costs associated with the property tax.

The case illustrates the analytical role of the professional public administrator inproviding current services efficiently and responsively as well as providing for thelong-term financial viability of the jurisdiction. It illustrates his or her educative role inpointing out the connection between the nature of the tax system, the quality of currentservices, and long-term financial viability. And it illustrates the political role of thepublic manager in balancing competing interests as well as perceptions of what currentservices should be and what the jurisdiction should look like in the long term. In myview, these questions should be considered outside of the current controversy, whichhas no merit.

Jerry A. Gianakis is an associate professor of public management at Suffolk University’sSawyer School of Management, and he is the coauthor of Local Government Budgeting:A Managerial Approach. Contact: [email protected]


IRENE RUBIN

The problem is that one relatively small group of taxpayers, the permanent resi-dents, has found a way to tax another, relatively larger group of taxpayers and shiftmuch of the burden of service provision onto this second group. Naturally, this secondgroup is upset by the apparent injustice, but, as they are only part-time residents withprimary residences and election rights elsewhere, they are unable to express their dis-pleasure at the polls. They have organized and demanded a veto on additional taxation,in which case their preferences would overrule the preferences of the minority of per-manent residents. Neither the status quo nor the proposed alternative is acceptable.The proposal to enfranchise the summer residents for the purposes of a tax referendumis legally dubious and suggests enfranchising whoever supports a particular proposalat a particular time.

A fairer solution would be to figure out what proportion of services the summer res-idents use. Their houses remain when they leave; burglaries may occur, city waterpipes to their homes may freeze and have to be repaired, sewer pipes to their homesmay clog up. But they do not use roads when they are not present, reducing the need fortraffic controls and reducing wear and tear on the roads. They probably use more thanone sixth of the services used by the permanent residents, but they certainly do not useas much. Some effort should go into an analysis of how much service they use and atwhat costs. Because property taxation cannot differentiate between permanent andtemporary residences, some thought should also go into shifting some of the costs cur-rently being carried by the property taxes into other forms of revenue collection, suchas fees, that are more easily differentiated. The permanent residents could pay more forall year-round services, and temporary residents could pay less for services used only afew months of the year.

This solution might not work in every state because of laws constraining the abilityof local governments to control their own taxes and revenues, but if it is legal in thestate, the obvious fairness of the solution should be appealing. The permanent resi-dents might still be miffed at their inability to put most of the burden of taxation onsomeone else; but they might also decide that, if they must pay proportionally for ser-vices they use, they could use less and thus control their own taxation level. Most citi-zens prefer the discretion implicit in this model.

Irene Rubin is a professor in the public administration division of Northern Illinois Uni-versity. She is author of The Politics of Public Budgeting and Class Tax and Power (Chat-ham House) and former editor of Public Budgeting and Finance and Public Administra-tion Review. Contact: [email protected]

DORIS MARTIN

Interesting question for a tax collector. I have some sympathy for the summer folkwho feel victimized by the tax structure. Most of us in government may think in terms


of voters, but tax collectors are aware that people who pay their taxes are at least “pay-ing their fair share.”

Because I don’t know what other taxes exist or may be authorized for the city’s use,I won’t assume other taxes could be used. However, I think basing the majority of yourrevenue on property taxes is punitive to all property owners, whether permanent orseasonal. A mixture of taxes might provide healthier economics for both governmentand residents. For instance, sales taxes tap into the spending of seasonal residents andvisitors for overall community benefit.

I do not believe the government should abdicate its responsibility for governing; thenonvoting residents shouldn’t have veto power over tax increases. But, there need to bediscussions of possible solutions rather than edicts, threats, and unilateral proposals.

The summer residents do get the benefits of clean water, safe roads, and publicsafety provisions of fire and police services; they are not taxed without benefit. Theydon’t have to live in Xanadu; their summer homes could be somewhere else. But, as acouncil member pointed out, the town could be shooting itself in the foot to completelydisregard this group. I don’t think there’s a simple answer, but I do think that discus-sions in which persons in government leadership roles and residents really listen toeach other would lead to acceptable compromises, if not ideal solutions.

Doris Martin, revenue administrator for the city of Knoxville, Tennessee, for 11 years,has a master’s degree in public administration from Florida State University. She hasworked in local government finance for 17 years. Contact: [email protected]

SHELDON PRESSER

The problem as I see it is, How can the city administrator appease both the year-round and summer-only property owners without jeopardizing the interests of all in themunicipality?

The major issue is that summer-only property owners—perhaps the majority ofXanadu property owners—feel they are disenfranchised because they cannot vote inthe local Xanadu election (as they choose to use another residence as their primaryjurisdiction and vote there). Therefore, they are subject to the actions of a city councilthey cannot elect—actions that include a recent 10% property tax increase. The sum-mer-only property owners tackled this perceived inequity by forming a tax reformcommittee that is seeking to enact an ordinance giving itself veto power over taxincreases enacted by the city council. The legality of such an ordinance is about to gounder the review of the city attorney.

There is also an active group of Xanadu property owners who oppose the ordinancebased on the premise that the projects and services funded by property taxes enhanceeveryone’s property value. This group reminds committee members that if they areunhappy with the city council, they can change their legal voting residence to Xanadu.This group also fears the ordinance can “open a can of worms” inasmuch as the refer-enda electorate may ultimately include renters, seasonal employees, and other tran-


sient taxpayers—the total number of whom could significantly exceed the currentsummer population of 65,000.

In determining a strategy to appease both groups as well as maintain sound financesthe city administrator needs to do several things. First, she needs to establish a dialoguebetween all constituents (voting and nonvoting) and the Xanadu municipal govern-ment. I would recommend initiating a budget forum for all constituents to be held at atime and place convenient for the majority of residents. This forum should include citycouncil members as well as representatives from all city departments who are in theposition to respond to any questions or issues raised by forum attendees. In preparationfor the forum, the city administrator should put together and distribute (in advance) abrief budget guide that categorizes property tax spending (e.g., public improvements,police, tourism, administration, etc.) and details dollar amounts and percentages foreach category. Taxes billed and collected through Xanadu but levied by other authori-ties (e.g., schools, fire district, and county government) should also be clearly delin-eated with phone numbers and addresses so that constituents can direct any questionsregarding those taxes appropriately.

When the forum is held, the city administrator should set a tone of conciliation andworking toward the common good. It must be made clear that all residents are on equalfooting as far as the forum goes, regardless of voting status. Within this framework, Iwould recommend that the city administrator shift the focus away from state votingregulations and public referenda and instead move toward the open budget forum pro-cess as a means of resolving differences in budget priorities. She should point out thatthe funds needed to cover the costs of conducting referenda (including legal research,challenges, etc.) would be much better spent on improving Xanadu for all residentsand visitors—giving rebates to taxpayers if joint decisions can be reached to cut cer-tain programs. She should also remind all taxpayers that governing Xanadu is afull-time endeavor and that the formation of budget priorities is only one aspect ofgovernment—and that the open budget forum is the mechanism the city council pre-fers to use for input from all taxpayers.

The city administrator should then take the lead and form committees that wouldinvestigate and report back on various budget issues that are of concern. If possible,participation can be solicited from nonresident businesspeople and/or other towns thathave faced similar dilemmas. For example, a committee—composed of summer-onlyresidents, year-round residents, and perhaps a gas station owner who lives two townsaway—could be formed to look into alternative sources of revenue (user fees, etc.).From the information given, it appears that whereas there may be a general definabledifference of opinion between the summer-only and year-round property owners,there are also those who cross “party lines,” that is, year-round residents who want topay less taxes and summer-only residents who do not mind paying higher taxes formore improvements (there is a specific reference to an antitax council member in thecase study). The city administrator should capitalize on those who “cross the aisle,”and she should try to strategically steer them to participate in the more contentiouscommittees.

In summary, the issue presented has two plausible generalizations: Year-roundproperty owners feel that summer-only property owners do not want to pay the taxesfor a year-round town. At the same time, summer-only property owners feel year-


round property owners unfairly collect their tax money—with no voting representa-tion—to supplement services that they must also pay for in their primary localities.There is one major factor that unites both groups: a large investment in real property inXanadu. Although it is true that summer-only property owners might sooner abandonXanadu than the year-round property owners, such decisions would not normally bemade in haste. Therefore, the city administrator is in the position to create a spirit ofcooperation by offering participation to those “disenfranchised”—despite the legalparameter of no voting for most summer-only property owners. I feel an ongoing inde-pendent budget process—not a series of voting referenda—is the most efficient way toachieve agreement. Although the idea of a referendum sounds nice, it will not neces-sarily guarantee a decision that is best for a small municipality.

SPECIAL AUTHOR’S NOTE

In “real life,” the New Jersey Department of Human Services utilizes the budgetforum concept to solicit community participation as part of its budget process. Threegeographic-based forums are held each spring and fall. A tentative schedule was com-municated to me (not official yet and subject to change—and I do not believe it hasbeen released to the public):

Central: Tuesday, October 9North: Wednesday, October 10South: Friday, October 12

Each forum begins at 10 a.m. and lasts about 2 hours. If you or any students are inter-ested, contact me by telephone (609-292-5211) or e-mail ([email protected]),and I will see that you get the correct information; exact dates, times, and locations;and good directions. Once finalized, these will be announced and open to the public;they usually have free refreshments and can be quite interesting. They will not be asintense as the type of forum I suggested in my response to the case study; nor do theyutilize a formal committee system. However, you will see service providers, otherstate/local/county officials, constituents, and consumers in action.

Sheldon Presser is an assistant director, Fiscal and Management Operations, New JerseyDivision of Youth and Family Services. Contact: P.O. Box 717, Trenton, NJ 08625-0717;e-mail: [email protected]


PPMR / December 2001BOOK REVIEW SYMPOSIUM

BOOK REVIEW SYMPOSIUM

The Language of Public Administration: Bureaucracy, Modernity, andPostmodernity, by David John Farmer. Tuscaloosa: University of AlabamaPress, 1995.

RICHARD C. BOX

I did not read David John Farmer’s book The Language of Public Administrationuntil several years after its release. When I first came to it, I found the book a bitremoved from my immediate interests. Such a response to Language might not beunusual; although some scholars cite the book in their work, it may not have found theaudience enjoyed by other books in public administration (PA) that are more immedi-ately useful for professional practice or empirical research. Possibly, characteristicssuch as the ones listed below make this book less accessible than some others. It can besaid that Language:

• does not synthesize or choose between ideas but instead offers differing perspectives oneach one, allowing it to reveal a variety of facets;

• does not focus only on one unit of analysis (individual, organization, institution, society)but uses all of them;

• draws on several disciplines (economics, history, philosophy, and so on);• artfully summarizes complex areas of thought (epistemology, science and technology,

public choice economics, postmodernism), but at a level of abstraction that pushes thereader out from the text into original and reference works (unless one is the rare readerwith Farmer’s grasp of these bodies of thought);

• has a relentless normative agenda of taking apart and critically examining normativeagendas;

• addresses complex, antirationalist matters in a modernist, logical fashion, blendingdeconstructive postmodern thought with modernist clarity.

These are not the attributes of a straightforward text that hammers home a message.Instead, Language challenges the reader to imagine beyond the written words, draw-ing connections between current personal knowledge and the various bodies ofthought woven into the narrative. The word current is used because most people willnot absorb the entire book in a few hours, days, or weeks; nor will they find its messageto be fixed and unchanging. This is the sort of book to which one returns repeatedlyover time, discovering that it speaks differently to the reader depending on circum-stance and experience.

When, relatively recently, Language seemed to connect with my interests, I found itshifting my perspective on knowledge in PA further from method and doctrinaire con-sistency and closer to openness and change. There are people in the field who wish for


239

tight, narrow boundaries around what is studied in PA and how it is studied. They seemto think that excluding much of the diverse and chaotic world of knowledge andrestricting ways of knowing to specific, rule-bound approaches will somehow maketheir efforts more legitimate to other academicians, especially those who believehuman beings are capable of locating concrete, objective “Truth.”

It is easy enough to be caught up in the passion of arguments for and against suchnarrowing. The debate spans decades and is even more pertinent today, as economisticthought seems to dominate the public sector. Neither grand theory nor quantitativeanalyses have much effect on practice—practitioners pay little attention to such thingsbecause they do not seem directly relevant to their work. Academicians engage in themfor their own purposes, such as career advancement, ego gratification, or belief in thepossibility of building knowledge, but there is little evidence that it creates meaningfulsocial change.

Whatever the merits of positions on the issue of knowledge and PA, Farmer gentlyshifts back and forth among concepts, exploring their meanings and interrelationships,nudging the reader toward a broader view of the context and value of ideas. In this pro-cess, academic spats about epistemology and intellectual legitimacy come to appeararcane, trivial, and petty. One realizes there is work of greater importance to be donethan to defend a miniscule patch of dogma while problems that cause confusion, hurt,and waste surround us and await action.

Meanwhile, back to the daily labor of public service, of what practical use areFarmer’s ideas? He tells us (p. 8) that the book is directed toward six groups: politi-cians and other influentials, PA theorists and students, practitioners, social action andscience professionals, the public, and those interested in modernism andpostmodernism. It is likely many of these people will not spend time with a book suchas Language, but it may reach target audiences through the work of those who do. Lan-guage has a number of messages useful for these audiences, and I want to highlight twoI think are particularly important. The first is that, as O. C. McSwite (1997) noted in areview of Language, it allows modernism and postmodernism to coexist despite theinherent contradictions. Agreeing with Farmer, McSwite put it this way: “We in publicadministration must learn to embrace paradox, to let contradiction stand, and to stopinsisting on the singular truths that one-dimensional rationalism promises but neverquite provides” (p. 176). Farmer (pp. 144-150) writes that postmodernism may beregarded as a denial of the certainties of modernism (a view he shares) or as an exten-sion and elaboration of preexisting conditions. Either way, postmodernism can bedeeply disturbing to people who have built their lives around the ideas it attacks. Lan-guage should help soothe such fears because although it interrogates modernistassumptions, it also recognizes their value; and although it asks us to considerpostmodern ideas, it does so in a manner that allows us to envision using them in ourcurrent situation.

Second, people may be wary of postmodern concepts, expecting them to be sopeculiar and distant from common experience that they cannot be made to serve a pur-pose. However, the ideas introduced by Farmer seem, given some time to absorb and


reflect, not just negations of current mainstream thought (although they are that, tosome extent) but constructive contributions to PA theory. He introduces a term,antiadministration, intended to capture the overall intent of the postmodern ideas out-lined in the book. This could be an unfortunate word choice because, for some readers,it may call to mind images of subversive or even destructive activities; but that is notwhat is meant. Antiadministration encourages administrators to evaluate their actionswith sensitivity toward their effects and with the understanding that modernist admin-istrative systems can be closed, authoritarian, and coercive. The administrator practic-ing with awareness of antiadministration will attempt to open governance systems toaffected communities of interest and to minimize the damage done by public actionsthat treat people as categories and cases instead of individuals.

In this abbreviated summary form, antiadministration sounds much like well-known normative reactions against the effects of bureaucracy and mass society. Butthis is not a superficial call for market-like “customer service with a smile” or a lamentfor a simpler, lost era. Service with a smile might indeed be welcome withinantiadministration, but Farmer is suggesting a reorientation of the underlying stance ofPA in relation to society. The theoretical framework for this reorientation ispostmodern, but it shares a concern with older political/philosophical thought for theeffects of government on individuals within the public community.

When one spends time with Language, it may come to resemble a comprehensivereference work on contemporary PA, a sort of “Companion to Public AdministrationTheory,” a guide to what PA has been, what it seems to be in the process of becoming,and what it could be if people made other choices. I suspect its lasting value may be as amilepost, a marker for a time of transition. In this thorough and balanced work, DavidJohn Farmer has displayed an array of modern and postmodern constraints and possi-bilities, giving us a head start on joining the flow of change instead of dealing with itseffects after much has passed us by. This is a very important book for the field of PA.

A good way to close is to quote Farmer, who, sounding a bit like pragmatist philoso-pher Richard Rorty, writes that given the contemporary situation, “It will become moreimportant . . . to find ways of transforming public bureaucracy into a more positiveforce for realizing our common dreams” (p. 7). This is an ambitious goal, and Farmerhas taken us significantly closer to its realization.

Reference

McSwite, O. C. (1997). Postmodernism and public administration’s identity crisis. Public AdministrationReview, 57, 174-181.

Richard C. Box is a faculty member in the Department of Public Administration at theUniversity of Nebraska, Omaha. His published work focuses on citizens, democracy, andthe relationship of public administration to the broader society. Contact: [email protected]

BOOK REVIEW SYMPOSIUM 241

LOUIS F. WESCHLER

THE PROBLEM OF LANGUAGE IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Points of Departure

An ancient dialogue continues. Since Pythagoras challenged the idealist view ofimmutable truth, stating that man is the measure of all things, thoughtful people haveconsidered human construction of reality. The idea that meaning is constructed by thehuman mind trying to measure reality underlies much of contemporary criticism of thefunction of public administration in the liberal state. Modern American public admin-istration, in Farmer’s view, is nothing more than a particular, albeit potent, human con-struction of political reality.

Farmer, like Pythagoras, thinks that the human mind understands what it con-structs. The interpretative center of this book concerns the series of interconnectedconstructions Farmer characterizes as the languages of American public administra-tion. These languages, self-consciously or not, underlie our individual and collectiveunderstanding of how public administration works and how well it serves the public.

Farmer’s dual theses are

1. The conventional language of public administration in the American liberal state hasoutlived its usefulness. Although it supported major advances in the practice and thestudy of public administration, this language is a collection of well-worn, limited con-structions that have run the logic of inquiry into dead ends and misleading prescriptions.It can no longer serve practice and study in this postmodern world.

2. A new language based partially on critical theory can help us overcome some of the lim-its of the conventional language of inquiry. Using a reflexive language paradigm, onemay delve beneath the surface meaning of the administrative state and get beyond thelimits of particularism, scientism, technologism, enterprise, and hermeneutics.

Language, Lenses, and Inquiry

The object of Farmer’s inquiry is the dominant language of inquiry used when liber-als describe American public administration and discourse about its meaning.Scholars have debated for about 200 years the need for and the existence of a domi-nant, single language of public administration. Although Farmer allows that Americanpublic administration is more or less intellectually fragmented and contentious, hesenses a common set of underlying assumptions and constructions. He claims that“public administration theory is a paradigm case of modernity” (p. 47). As it embracesthe rationalizing spirit of the Enlightenment, public administration is part and parcel ofthe rational instrument for expression of the values of capitalism within bureaucraticenterprise.

Farmer focuses on the lens of legal rational order. The concern for procedural ratio-nality has, in his view, led public administration to be overly concerned with the cen-tered subject. Postmodern life, in contrast, deals with the decentralized subject andsubstantive reality. The Weberian overconcern with legal rationality has produced


numerous contraries and contradictions in conventional public administrationlanguage.

Languages are semiautonomous cognitive systems. We learn them from others butmake them our own. Lakoff and Johnson (1980), among others, have argued that welive by powerful metaphors, metaphors that shape our sense of being and our relation-ships. Farmer’s concerns for the limits of a given language are well taken. If modernpublic administration, exemplified in his book by Weber and Simon, has a consistentlanguage, it surely will produce abnormalities as well as normalities of practice andinquiry.

Borrowing from Kaplan (1964), we can see that all languages—actual and poten-tial—of American public administration constitute their own lens of understandingsubstantive content. If inquiry has freedom of cognitive choice, then various formal-ized (reconstructed) cognitive styles, each with its own language, metaphors, models,form of discourse, and rules of conduct, emerge in inquiry. Each reconstructed cogni-tive style will provide separate understandings of reality. Each is a more or less autono-mous construction, although often meaning overlaps.

And, as the special cases of the legal-rational, positivist approaches of Weber andSimon demonstrate, each cognitive style will have its own limits including contrariesand contradictions. “Yes,” the postmodernist agrees, but then says, “my style has fewerdead ends than the eristic modern style. It is better because it avoids most of the prob-lems of scientism and offers opportunities it cannot.” And critics of postmodernthought respond, “Maybe, but so far, I cannot tell.”

After assessing the limits of the conventional American public administration lan-guage, Farmer moves on to offer an alternative: a postmodern approach based on criti-cal theory. He uses this approach to deconstruct some of the conventional language andto describe a language that he claims is more open, diverse, and “decentered.”

Connectivity

One of the most powerful underpinnings of Farmer’s work is the notion that every-thing is connected. Every person (and thing) is interconnected. All acts and actionsaffect all others. There is no sufficient limit on the effects of any given act or action.This Zen-like construction (Zen teachers cringe at the notion of construction) requiresadministrators to be “antiadministrative” in all their actions (p. 227). Farmer’s discus-sion of “alerity,” the consideration of the moral order and consequences of things,informs us that the administrator, whose role is inherently fascist (autocratic), must inthe postmodern parlance be antifascist. Administrators must live counter to all formsof fascism, including administrative life. It seems postmodern administrative life mustcontradict itself.

Diversity is a hallmark of postmodernity. It may not, however, be inclusive enoughto accept the inherently contradictory theory fragments that characterize publicadministration theory. It is true that concern with management and legal rational orderdominate public administration, even to the exclusion of other constructs. The liberalstate is a living paradox. It must defend its liberal core against all challenges, includingliberalism. It is unlikely to reform itself.


Nonetheless, change can only come if we all embrace diversity, limits, and contra-dictions. Posing another form of rationality to replace liberal rationality will not do.Let us hope that openness in postmodern thought includes openness in cognitivestyles, meanings, constructs, and actions.

Let’s Communicate

Farmer aims at five groups of readers: politicians (and other influential persons),public administration theorists and students, public administration practitioners,social action and social science professionals (change agents), and attentive public(interested in quality of life).

His book probably will connect with students, theorists, and social action profes-sionals. It probably will not connect with most politically powerful persons, publicadministration practitioners, and attentive members of the public.

Three reasons stand out. First, this is an academic book written by a theorist who iscritically self-conscious about meaning. Generally, persons of power are not muchinterested in meaning and are more interested in the process of the exercise of influ-ence. Practitioners are mostly interested in process and procedural rationality(being well versed in conventional public administration language). Even the mostself-conscious, reflective practitioner will have little use for the arid reconstructions ofthis book. Members of the public are smart, but they probably lack the patience andacademic background to plow through the highly refined special terms used by theauthor.

Second, this book lacks clarity and simplicity. A friend once said that getting hisdoctorate changed him so that he is now able to explain a simple idea in such a way thatno one can understand it. Farmer is well read and it shows. His constructions and usagemake it difficult to follow his presentations. It is useful to distinguish between certain-ties and confusions. One can applaud Farmer’s concern that public administrationmust come to grips with the uncertainty of reality and still be appalled at the lack ofclarity and conciseness in his presentation and writing.

Third, critics of liberalism face a considerable language bind. They must critiqueliberalism (which Farmer does in the first 143 pages of his book) in its own language.Even the use of special terms does not permit him to escape the powerful limits of theconstruction he is trying to assess.

Unger (1975), facing a similar problem, said,

No aspect of the problem of language is more difficult and disturbing than [the] method-ological one. The methods of proof and argument are part of the theory to be criticized. Inwhat form is the total criticism to bring its suit, and by what law are its claims to bejudged? (p. 12)

Farmer uses the only solution at hand. In dealing with liberalism, he often uses oldwords in new ways. The need to deviate from conventional “logical analysis” pusheshim to extend liberal language beyond its normal meaning. In doing so, he confoundsthose whose cognitive styles and conceptual base embrace liberalism, positivism, andmodern public administration.


Even the second half of the book uses much of the language of liberalism in present-ing the ideas and ideals of a postmodern alternative. The inescapable use of the domi-nant language of liberal discourse will lead many readers to think, What is really newhere?

References

Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Unger, R. M. (1975). Knowledge and politics. New York: Free Press.

Louis Weschler is a professor emeritus in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona StateUniversity. Currently, he consults with local governments in the Inter-Mountain West. Hetakes lots of time to hike, walk his dogs, and garden. Contact: School of Public Affairs,Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-0603 or [email protected]

CHERYL SIMRELL KING

A BEGINNING

This review essay is being written on September 19, 2001, a week and a day afterthe attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The goal was to have the essaycompleted before today, but I found myself paralyzed in the aftermath of the attacks. Ifound myself questioning my theories of public administration, questioning my faith,if you will. I wondered if, and how, I could write about the importance of what DavidJohn Farmer calls “antiadministration” in the current context.

Although there is no adequate rational or reasonable explanation for the events thatkilled more than 6,000 people in what the media is rhetorically and poetically referringto as “a New York minute,” we search for explanations nonetheless. Rationality is atthe core of modernity . . . our faith in rationality gets us through the day (or it has in thepast). If only we can explain, then we will understand.

And explanations abound. One explanation implicates the U.S. government—politicians, military, and administrators alike. People promulgating this rationaliza-tion state that the hatred at the core of these heinous acts is spawned, in part, by foreignand domestic policy that have little regard for “collateral damage” and economic ruin.And they are correct—they have the facts to support their position.

Another argument is offered by those who note this is a sad and painful moment inwhich the nation has come to recognize something others have known all along—thatmany of us live in terror and with many forms of terrorism in our daily lives: thoseimprisoned as a result of the “drug war,” victims of domestic violence and child abuse,victims of hate crimes, and many others too numerous to name. These folks alreadyknow a lesson the rest of us might just be learning—that our notion of a safe, secure,and not random world is just an illusion. And they are correct—they have the facts tosupport their position.


We all have facts and truths to support our positions, and there are many positions.Who is right and who is wrong? Is there only right and wrong? Do we have any otherchoices?

Maybe this is where antiadministration comes in. Perhaps this national (global)tragedy needs a solution that is not steeped in modernity—in the very belief thatenlightened reason will show us the way home. Farmer tells us “public administrationis a paradigm case of modernity” (p. 48). Administration seems to be about trying tomake things not random through predicting, controlling, planning, organizing, andbudgeting. These activities usually serve us (the majorities) when the trains are run-ning on time. But what do we do when they are not running on time? What do we do inthe face of national, or global, emergency? On one hand, we resort to a deeper com-mand and control model—the model on which most militaries are built and sustained(as my military friends tell me, you can’t run a war using citizen participation andworkplace democracy—folks have to obey orders, do what they are told). On the otherhand, we throw out our models, budgets, and predictions and try to make sense of thecurrent context. We work with what we have on hand at the moment. We, in a way,antiadministrate.

Farmer tells us that

the importance of questions about bureaucracy is likely to be seen as more pressing as theproblems continue to deepen. [As these problems deepen] it becomes more important tofind ways of transforming public bureaucracy into a more positive force for realizing ourcommon dreams. (p. 7)

Indeed. Perhaps exploring David John Farmer’s work is even more important in thewake of the events of September 11, 2001. We need to find ways to transform ourbureaucracies into more positive forces for realizing our common dreams.

David John Farmer published The Language of Public Administration: Bureau-cracy, Modernity, and Postmodernity in 1995. He dedicated the book to the U.S. gov-ernment and to the city of New York. This poetic and synchronistic dedication alsoseems world enough to explore Farmer’s work now, as we sift through the rubble andbegin to understand the long-term implications of recent events on the U.S. govern-ment, the city of New York, and governments and agencies throughout the nation andthe world.

A BRIEF REVIEW

We shall not cease from explorationAnd the end of all our exploringWill be to arrive where we startedAnd know the place for the first time.

—T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets

What I’m talking about is going the other way.

—David John Farmer (as quoted inO. C. McSwite, in press)


If the reader is a bit confused, all to the good.

—Tricia Patterson (in press)

It has been 6 years since the publication of this book. Why book review essays now?Most books are reviewed shortly after their publication—the reviews serve to promotethe book and educate readers about what is new in the world of literature and theory.

It is my understanding that the purpose of these reviews is somewhat different. It isnot our job to review the book, tell you its strengths and weaknesses, and come up withsome pithy critique that will serve to impress you with our intelligence and aplomb.Instead, it is our job to convince you to read/explore this book and David Farmer’sideas. Recently, Bob Cunningham, the book review editor of this journal, noticed thatFarmer’s work had gained significant purchase in the public administration theorycommunity. His work is important. Time to pay it some due.

Does it matter that the book is 6 years postpublication? No. Is it the book itself thatmatters here? No. What matters is that readers explore David Farmer’s ideas in thehope that, in T. S. Eliot’s words, we will “arrive where we have started and know theplace for the first time.”

The Language of Public Administration contains the core of Farmer’s ideas and the-ories; he has built substantially on this work since the publication of this book. I mustwarn the reader: To read this book is to embark on a difficult journey. Farmer himselfadmits this, knowing that kneading together philosophy, theory, and the practice ofpublic administration will yield heavily leavened bread. Harbor no illusions—you willbe more than a bit confused; and that is all the better, as Tricia Patterson (in press) tellsus. Reading this book should make you question everything—make you challengeyour faith and beliefs. And all the better. You will not walk away from this book withanswers. And all the better.

Farmer is one of a series of theorists (and he is also a former practitioner, if thismodernist dichotomy has any meaning) who are taking on the iconic beliefs embeddedin modernist public administration. Farmer’s work suggests that public administrationis locked in its modernist trappings. Modernist public administration, as Farmer states,is “valuable, yet limiting” (p. 34). It has brought us to a certain place, but it stands in theway of our getting any further. It cannot, as Farmer states, “be an explanatory and cata-lytic force in resolving the problems with bureaucracy” (p. 34). In chapters devoted toeach, Farmer cogently argues that there are significant limits to the five pillars of mod-ernistic public administration:

1. particularism (specialization of fragmentation),2. scientism (science as a religion—all answers lie in science),3. technologism (technology as a religion—all answers lie in technology),4. enterprise (all answers lie in the free market), and5. hermeneutics (the search for rational meaning).

All, says Farmer, “encounter paradoxes and blind spots” (p. 143) and cannot help us inour quest to address the presumably insolvable problems of bureaucracy.


What, according to Farmer, replaces the five tenets in a nonmodernistic publicadministration? Let us not call them tenets or proverbs or pillars—to do so would beanti-antiadministration. Instead, let us propose them as themes:

1. imagination (imaginal instead of rational meaning),2. deconstruction (dismantling narratives/stories/languages that create and perpetuate our

modernist institutions),3. deterritorialization (all knowledge/discourses become one of many; no one is privi-

leged), and4. alterity (an ethical position that includes an openness and tentativeness, in particular, an

openness toward the “other,” a preference for diversity, and opposition to metanarratives(big stories) and the established order).

Farmer uses a reflexive language paradigm technique in his analysis—using dia-metrically contrasting lenses to illuminate the social constructions embedded in ournotions of public administration. Through this, he shows us that what we take as factsand truths are only vestiges of our language game. It is possible to do things differently.It is possible to partake of another language game.

To prescribe what that would look exactly like, to define antiadministration, wouldbe in opposition to the principles of antiadministration. To be an antiadministrator, onehas to resist defining things—everything must be open to deconstruction anddeterritorialization. One is open, tentative, imaginative, playful, and aware of themoral validity of different perspectives. One seeks to redistribute power such that thebalance shifts toward community and away from government. One practices a type ofprofessional anarchism (although I use this word hesitantly and advisedly as it is beingbastardized in global politics in its association with violence). One is courageous. Oneis a hero or an antihero (I am not sure which—probably both).

Farmer states in his epilogue, “going beyond modernity does mean recognizing thedead ends to which modernity leads, but the benefits of going beyond modernity do notimply abandoning all the insights and contributions achieved by the mind set ofmodernity” (p. 246). It is not a matter of abandoning but of “going beyond” or “goingthe other way.”

This book should be read. Or perhaps it should be dipped into over time. One read-ing will not do. It will take many readings and much reflection to get it (I admit, I amstill not there). Readers are well advised to also partake of the work spawned by thisbook—David Farmer writes a column for every edition of the journal AdministrativeTheory & Praxis. His columns are engaging and informative and never cease to amazeme. A forthcoming edition of Administrative Theory & Praxis contains a symposiumon antiadministration with articles written by some of the best minds in public admin-istration theory. Readers will find this symposium helpful in their interpretations of,and reflections on, Farmer’s work.

A LENS

How might Farmer’s work inform our analysis of recent events; how might it helpus cope? I think the premises of imagination, deconstruction, deterritorialization, andalterity all apply. It is going to take imagination to get us to a place that is different from


the places that perpetuate terrorism. We will need to deconstruct our cherished beliefsand stories that perpetuate our modern institutions of politics and governance. We needto deterritorialize the knowledge that says that there is one right way to conduct our-selves or one right analysis of the situation. And we need to be very open to others.

Indeed, recently a commentator on National Public Radio talked about these timesas being revelationary. She noted that the word revelation means to expose, to unveil,that which is hidden from view. She posited that these events have exposed the illu-sions that first world countries have been harboring for decades, perhaps for centuries:that our privilege and our position protect us, shelter us, from the rest of the world; thatwe are somehow different from those who struggle to survive in non–first world com-munities; that we deserve, or have the right, to live unconsciously—blissfully unawareof the effects of our actions on the planet and on other people. We are one world, shesaid—we are one people. First world peoples can no longer live as if we are not.

If we were to take these revelations seriously, what would be the potential effects onour governments and administrative bodies? Of course I cannot say, but I can speculatethat the changes would call on us to practice forms of antiadministration.

As I watch the rescue workers and public administrators do the difficult and painfuljob of recovery and reconstruction following the attacks on New York and Washing-ton, D.C., I cannot help but think they are already practicing antiadministration. Theyare, as they grieve through their work, “going the other way.” They are reaching out toeach other, regardless of the “otherness” of the “other.” One of the most touchingscenes, for me, is the men and women of all races and nationalities forming the bucketbrigades at the site of the World Trade Center. Bucket by bucket, hand over hand, handstouching hands, they slowly move the remains of those mighty towers. All our knowl-edge, machines, and skill cannot help us—modernity is of no assistance. We resort to ahuman solution. In doing so, we antiadministrate.

The men and women firefighters and rescue workers who were going up the stairsas the workers in the towers were going down also seemed to be practicing a sort ofantiadministration. If there were orders, they probably would have been to evacuatethe buildings. Heroism often happens because people do not follow orders. The folkson the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania were not following the orders of the hijack-ers. They were all practicing a kind of heroic anarchism, a kind of antiadministration.

I hope that those who are in the position to make decisions about what comes nextalso practice antiadministration. I hope we learn we cannot continue doing things theway we have always done them. We need to transform ourselves to realize our com-mon dreams. A profound statement when Farmer first wrote it; it is even more pro-found today.

I am painfully aware that my application here of Farmer’s work may be trite or sim-plistic. I am painfully aware that this is not a simplistic situation and there are no easyor simple answers/solutions. I am also aware, however, that continuing to do what wehave done all along is not likely to get us anywhere else. David John Farmer’s workprovides us with a lens through which to view our constructions of bureaucracy, gov-ernment, and public administration. Regardless of your response to my musings here,it is a lens worth looking through.


References

McSwite, O. C. (in press). The psychoanalytic rationale for anti-administration. Administrative Theory &Praxis.

Patterson, T. (in press). Imagining anti-administration’s anti-hero: (Antagonist? Protagonist? Agonist?).Administrative Theory & Praxis.

Cheryl Simrell King teaches in the Graduate Program of Public Administration at Ever-green State College in Olympia, Washington. Currently, the focus of her work is on thedemocratization of administrative processes and structures. Contact: [email protected]


PPMR / December 2001BOOK REVIEWS

BOOK REVIEWS

BUSES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES: FACING THECHALLENGES OF URBAN TRANSPORTATION

Essays in Transportation Economics and Policy: A Handbook in Honor ofJohn R. Meyer, edited by Jose Gomez-Ibanez, William B. Tye, and CliffordWinston. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1999. 600 pages, $54.95(cloth), $22.95 (paper).

Alternate Route: Toward Efficient Urban Transportation, by Clifford Winstonand Chad Shirley. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1998. 122 pages,$36.95 (cloth), $15.95 (paper).

Transportation for Livable Cities, by Vukan R. Vuchic. New Brunswick, NJ:Center for Urban Policy Research, 1999. 377 pages, $29.95 (cloth).

Although it is often said that “nothing is sure but death and taxes,” residents in met-ropolitan areas can add another certainty of life to this list: urban transportation woes.As metropolitan areas continue to expand, frustration with the difficulty of movingaround in urban America continues to mount. Facing the challenges of traffic conges-tion and parking, increased noise and air pollution, greater travel delays, and road rage,transportation has become a policy issue prominent on the agenda of most large cities.The three books under review provide a thorough treatment of the condition of urbantransportation today. A common theme among these books is that urban transportationproblems are more significant now than ever, and the typical response of increasingcapacity through constant construction of roads is unsustainable. Beyond these points,readers will find that different causes of the present condition are highlighted and avariety of alternatives are prescribed.

Essays in Transportation Economics and Policy: A Handbook in Honor of John R.Meyer, edited by Jose Gomez-Ibanez, William B. Tye, and Clifford Winston, providesa collection of essays by prominent scholars. Organized into four sections, the essayssummarize what has been learned about specific aspects of transportation economics.

The first section is made up of four essays on “Techniques of Transportation Analy-sis.” Topics included in these chapters are models for estimating travel demand (Ken-neth A. Small and Clifford Winston), understanding transport cost (Ronald R.Braeutigam), pricing (Jose A. Gomez-Ibanez), and project evaluation (Small). Theselections on estimating demand and measuring cost provide a methodological reviewthat illustrates how selected tools can be applied to measuring these concepts. On theissue of pricing, Gomez-Ibanez explains that although marginal cost pricing couldresult in substantial gains in net benefit, this approach has not been employed in public


251

transportation. This is due to political pressure that exaggerates the difficulty of apply-ing this approach to transportation. Small’s essay on “Project Evaluation” is devoted tothe application of cost-benefit analysis to transportation projects.

“The Automobile in Society” is the title of the second section and contains essayson congestion, pollution control policies, fuel economy and auto safety regulation,technology-forcing policies, and determinants of motorization and road provision.One impact of the automobile on society that is addressed in these chapters is that ofcongestion (Herbert Mohring; Gregory K. Ingram and Zhi Liu). At the city level, asincome and motor vehicle ownership have increased faster than the length of roads, thetypical response of increasing capacity to combat traffic congestion is not feasible inthe long term. Instead, congestion pricing, charging higher tolls on roads during peakhours, is offered as a solution for increasing the efficiency of a road network. Theremaining three essays focus on the appropriateness of regulatory policy for creatingsafer and cleaner operating automobiles. Two essays challenge the wisdom of federalpolicies by pointing out contradictions in fuel economy and safety regulations(Charles Lave and Lester Lave) and the limits of technology-forcing policy (Robert A.Leone). In contrast, Arnold M. Howitt and Alan Altshuler conclude regulations thatfocus on requiring a few large corporations to create vehicles that pollute less are morepolitically feasible and more effective than those designed to reduce pollution by tar-geting individual behavior.

The third section addresses “Transportation and Cities.” In the first essay, John F.Kain pins responsibility for urban transportation problems on policy makers forunwisely investing a substantial amount of government subsidies in costly rail transitsystems and converting a largely private transit industry to public ownership and oper-ation. To correct the resulting inefficiency, he recommends congestion pricing, fareincreases, and privatizing public transit systems. The second essay by Don Pickrellargues that efforts to reduce the externalities of urban transportation (congestion andair pollution) through land use planning are likely to be ineffective. Instead, morerational investment levels and congestion pricing are desirable alternatives. KatherineM. O’Regan and John M. Quigley complete this section with “Accessibility and Eco-nomic Opportunity.” They conclude that transportation policy is not the most effectivemeans of affecting labor market outcomes for disadvantaged workers. This is becausejob access is not the most significant determinant of gaining employment; individualcharacteristics are.

“Regulatory Issues in Transportation” is the fourth section of this volume. StevenA. Morrison and Clifford Winston see positive results from deregulating the transpor-tation industry. Because firms are still adjusting to deregulation, consumer benefits arelikely to increase with time. Similarly, Robert E. Gallamore examines deregulation ofthe railroad industry. No longer stifled by government regulation, innovation in therailroad industry has significantly improved performance during the past 15 years. Inthe last essay, Ian Savage addresses the issue of commercial transportation safety.Although the risk of crashes has declined by at least half in all modes of commercialtransportation in the past 20 years, the public demands increased safety. Among hispolicy recommendations are a more informed public and a new approach to safety reg-ulation that would identify problems before, not after, an accident.


Several themes underlie the essays throughout this volume. First, urban transporta-tion is characterized by inefficiency. Second, efficiency is a primary value to be maxi-mized by policy. Third, government regulation and decision making have contributedsignificantly to the inefficiency. Fourth, greater influence of market forces (includingprivatization) would improve the efficiency of urban transportation.

The book’s target audience is appropriately identified as graduate students,advanced undergraduates, and other professionals. A background in microeconomicsis helpful. The range of topics and the coverage of the literature in these essays makesthis volume the single most complete resource on the state of economic transportationpolicy.

A perspective similar to that represented in the above volume is at the base of Alter-native Route: Toward Efficient Urban Transportation by Clifford Winston and ChadShirley. They identify the major problems facing urban transportation as large transitdeficits, proliferation of expensive rail systems, automobile congestion, costs ofexpanding highway capacity, vehicle pollution and safety, and adequate accessibilityto jobs and recreational activities. Winston and Shirley perceive the primary cause ofthis condition to be the political objectives held by policy makers. It logically follows,then, that “the solution to these problems therefore lies in minimizing policymakers’influence on the system’s performance” (p. 1). In short, their answer is privatization.

The first step in their analysis is to model the preferences of urban travelers. Usingmultinomial logit and data from the 1990 Census of Population and Housing, they con-clude automobile travel is the most highly valued mode of transportation. The secondfinding is that there would be a net social welfare gain if bus service were eliminated.This is because public deficits attributed to bus service actually exceed estimatedsocial benefits of this service. Third, the net social benefit of rail service is negligible(the value of rail service to commuters is comparable to rail subsidies).

The second step they take is to describe what an efficient system in the public sectorwould look like and to estimate the social benefits that would result from such a system(labeled “net-benefit maximization”). Toward this end, it is assumed that an efficientpricing system would set prices at marginal cost (for automobile, bus, and rail travel).It was estimated that marginal cost pricing alone would generate annual net benefits of$6.6 billion. Coupled with optimal transit service frequency, net-benefit maximizationis estimated to be $10.8 billion. Such a policy would sharply raise bus fares and sub-stantially cut frequency of service, raise rail fares and reduce service frequency, and sethigh tolls for congested cities during peak travel times.

The third step of the analysis is the development of a model of the political forcesmost responsible for the loss of social welfare due to inefficiencies in urban transitprices and service frequency. Using separate simultaneous equation models for transitbus and rail services, they attribute social welfare losses as follows: policy makers,$780 million; government subsidies, $1.5 billion; and constituency influence(sociodemographic and ethnic characteristics of a bus or rail system’s riders), $3.8billion.

They conclude,

The efficiency costs of subsidized prices and inefficient service are a consequence ofurban transportation policies that political forces have forged into tools for redistributing

BOOK REVIEWS 253

income from taxpayers to suppliers and certain travelers, the majority of whom cannot becharacterized as economically disadvantaged. (p. 107)

Given that the politics of urban transportation are unlikely to change, the only way toimprove urban transportation efficiency is “for policymakers . . . to relinquish most oftheir economic decisionmaking authority by privatizing urban transit, encouraging thedevelopment of private toll roads, and deregulating taxis” (p. 107).

Winston and Shirley do an excellent job developing their argument throughout thebook. Although they use complex econometric techniques effectively, the text does notheavily rely on the methods, making it accessible to those without strong quantitativebackgrounds. This is a strong example of empirical analysis that illustrates the applica-tion of privatization to a significant policy issue. The assumptions of efficiency as thekey policy goal and public organizations as inflexible and lacking incentives for inno-vation are present throughout these pages.

Still, this analysis could be enhanced in several ways. First, the authors abruptlydismiss the impact of their recommendations on disadvantaged populations and on airpollution. Second, the variables for the political actors and influences are a series ofdichotomies representing decision-making arrangements in government. To justifythese variables, the theory underlying their use should be more fully developed. Third,given the importance of politics as the cause of inefficiency, how do these groups influ-ence policy makers? What specific groups are these? Fourth, much attention is paid togovernment subsidization of transit bus and rail service, yet little attention is given tothe ways that automobile travel is subsidized. This may result in overvaluing the socialwelfare associated with automobile travel. Fifth, if inefficiencies are due to politicalforces that have forged policy to satisfy certain interests, is it politically feasible toexpect that these forces will permit privatization to occur?

A different perspective on urban transportation is offered by Vukan R. Vuchic inTransportation for Livable Cities. Instead of efficiency, the ultimate goal of policy isachieving a livable city: one that is human oriented and environmentally friendly, eco-nomically viable and efficient, and socially sound. Thus, the research question is, Howcan policy resolve transportation problems to contribute to the livability of cities?

His focus is on the conflict between automobiles and the characteristics of a livablecity. Vuchic portrays urban transportation as a “tragedy of the commons.” The colli-sion of cars and cities is a conflict between short-term individual interest and long-term social interest. Current policies encourage behavior based on short-term individ-ual interest and do so in two ways. First, a lack of realistic pricing of automobile travelresults in individuals driving too much. The private car as a mode of travel is greatlyunderpriced relative to its costs due to subsidies such as public road construction andusers not paying environmental costs. Second, shortsighted policies focus attention onspecific transportation components and do not consider the broader role of transporta-tion in creating livable cities. The result is an imbalance between modes of transporta-tion. The continuation of these policies is promoted by special interests that benefitfrom car dominance, further perpetuating the problem.

In contrast to other developed nations, the United States pursues policies thatencourage car use and discourage transit use. For instance, the United States follows apolicy of increasing highway capacity while at the same time reducing subsidies for


urban transit and Amtrak. Whereas peer countries have moved toward balanced urbantransportation systems, the United States generally has not. The Intermodal SurfaceTransportation Equity Act (1991) did promote the goal of a balanced, multimodaltransportation system, but its implementation has been hampered by organizationalinertia and political challenges.

The solution to urban transportation problems lies in achieving a balancedmultimodal transportation system. First, the following policies must be implementedto achieve a more efficient transportation system: transit-use incentives (increased fre-quency, reliability, comfort of service, lower fares) and car-use disincentives (highergasoline taxes, parking charges, limits on street and parking capacity).

Second, a broader focus on planning must be adopted. Vuchic identifies four levelsof planning: (a) city-transport relationship, (b) multimodal coordinated system, (c)single-mode network or system, and (d) individual facilities. Most problems today area result of failing to develop and implement policies of the first and second planninglevels. He is critical of economic studies that focus on a mode of transportation and donot consider others. These studies also are guilty of focusing on the third and fourthplanning levels.

Although special interests will resist such policy changes, implementation is possi-ble. Through public education about the complexity of urban transportation problems,inaccuracies in the public debate will be less influential, and popular support can beachieved.

People will not change their travel patterns and driving habits until they understand thatthese changes will, or could, result in a reduction of transportation costs for themselvesand for the government; that they will improve the economic vitality of metropolitanareas; and that cities will be more attractive and livable. (p. xxiv)

However, given the importance of the automobile to the American identity, thechallenge to creating a balanced multimodal system is more difficult than Vuchicimplies. Also, this analysis would be enhanced by more detail on the role that interestgroups play in perpetuating policies that promote short-term individual interests.Although it is mentioned that interests favoring highways fall in this category, this is asspecific as he gets. What specific special interest lobbies are at work here? What evi-dence is there of their influence? I have no doubt that he is correct about this, but suchan important role of special interests in perpetuating these policies must be furtherdemonstrated.

Although the three books agree that there are serious problems facing urban trans-portation, there is less agreement among the authors as to the causes of the conditionand the solutions that should be implemented. Whereas economists have faith in mar-ket forces to create efficient urban transportation, a planning focus suggests a morecentral role for collective action in resolving these problems. Taken together, thesethree books represent an excellent collection for understanding the differing perspec-tives on moving people in urban areas.

David J. HoustonUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville

BOOK REVIEWS 255

ON LEARNING AND GOVERNANCE

Beyond the Learning Organization: Paths of Organizational Learning in theEast German Context, by Mike Geppert. Gower Publishing, 2000. 197 pages,$64.95 (hardcover).

Governance Through Social Learning, by Gilles Paquet. University of OttawaPress, 1999. 272 pages, $25 (paperback).

Renewing Governance: Governing by Learning in the Information Age, bySteven A. Rosell. Oxford University Press, 1999. 316 pages, $29.79 (paperback).

Learning is an important public administration topic. One important issue is to clar-ify the relationships among concepts such as organizational learning, policy learning,and social learning. Another is to borrow the practices from the private sector whiletaking “publicness” into account. The three books reviewed here provide insights.

Beyond the Learning Organization is concerned with the social practice of organi-zational learning, addressing the social embeddedness of learning and how actorsactually learn. Geppert chose three East German firms to compare “how the actors ineach firm transformed their ways of thinking and acting, their organizational concepts,their internal relations and external relationships over a certain period of time.”(p. 58).He concludes: (1) Learning is not a cumulative process of perfecting a knowledgebase; (2) Learning occurs by practicing and acting; (3) Learning from others is learn-ing through networking and partnerships; (4) Balance should be kept between explan-atory and exploitative approaches, as well as between interests of different actors;(5) Learning and organizing are essentially antithetical processes; (6) Less structuredcultural systems are better for dealing with learning in novel situations; (7) Balanceshould be kept between contemporary organizational forms and traditional ones.

Geppert contends that “learning is not an inherent property of an individual or anorganization, but rather resides in the quality and the nature of the relationship betweenlevels of consciousness within the individual, between individuals, and between theorganization and the environment” (p. 50). “Only when the original intentions anddeveloped learning programmes fail...can managers start to search actively for pro-cesses that allow for the generation of new alternatives”(p. 16).

According to Geppert, neo-institutionalism emphasizes the inherent tendency oforganizations to becoming more homogeneous. But given the sensitive reliance ofinstitution evolution on its starting condition and the “butterfly” effect, institution evo-lution is inclined to be a unique process rather than an increasingly homogeneous one.This judgment has been confirmed by a number of studies on transitional economies.

Renewing Governance is the final report of a roundtable to “make sense of theimplications for governance of the emergence of a global information society, and todevelop more effective, learning-based approaches to governing in this new con-text”(p. X), and “to examine whether the information- and learning-based approachesthat are increasingly common in private-sector organizations could be applied withingovernment.”(p. 60) Six issues are discussed: how to strengthen public learning and


dialogue across boundaries; how to renew the social contract to deal with the new reali-ties; the leadership role that government needs to play in the new governing system;how to enable the public service to better support the new governing system by becom-ing a learning organization; how to use new technologies to increase the learningcapacity of government and society; and how to use scenarios to foster strategicconversation.

Rosell contends that besides becoming learning organizations for higher efficiencyand productivity, government agencies should become learning-facilitative to improvethe society’s governing capacity. In the information society, balance should be keptamong business, government, and civil society to build a distributed governing systemin which government is responsible for improving its learning capacity. It is the gov-ernment’s role to educate the people, build the public deliberation forum, renew thesocial contract, disseminate information and knowledge, and ensure a continuing con-structive dialogue.

Rosell documents the four scenarios constructed by the Roundtable, outlining waysin which a global information society might reshape governance: starship (economicboom and new social consensus), titanic (no economic growth, and no social consen-sus), HMS bounty (economic boom, but no social consensus), and windjammer (socialconsensus, but no economic boom). He believes the scenario approach could be usedby government managers to think strategically.

Similar to Renewing Governance, Governance Through Social Learning is con-cerned about how the information society is causing “wicked problems”, which canonly be solved by a governing system capable of experiential and action learning. Thebook is based upon Friedmann and Abonyi’s social learning model, as well as Boisot’smodel of the learning cycle and information space. Friedmann and Abonyi identifyfour subprocesses of social learning: the construction of reality, the formation of socialvalues, the design of political strategies, and collective action. Boisot identifies sixsteps of a learning cycle: scanning the environment, stylizing the problem, abstraction,diffusion, absorption, and impact. Boisot also differentiates four types of organiza-tions in terms of the degree of abstraction, codification, and diffusion of the flow ofinformation: bureaucracies, fiefs, markets, and clans. With these models, Paquet ana-lyzes eight policy issues: the free trade debate and science and technology policy(international perspective), energy policy and environmental policy (national perspec-tive), cultural policy and education policy (social perspective), and the policy of publicservice commissions and the policy of granting councils (administrative perspective).

Paquet emphasizes that a learning government does not mean less government, buta different form of government. He criticizes those projects that attempt to apply pub-lic consultation but nevertheless jump to the conclusion that the market representsCanadian values and the solution for every policy ill. Paquet is not anti-market, he callsfor a balance among market, government and civil society, and authentic public dia-logue. Government should facilitate, and carry the partners beyond the defensive rou-tines toward a willingness to raise the most difficult, subtle, and conflictual issues.Government leaders should become animateurs, whose task is “not goal-seeking andcontrol, but intelligence and innovation—the definition of standards and norms andthe negotiation of a moral, intellectual, and emotional norm-holding pact built on amulti-level dialogue...”(p. 198). Paquet identifies education, deliberation, and social

BOOK REVIEWS 257

capitalization as roads to social learning, and outlines “judicial usurpation of politics”as a stumbling block which results in the myopic search for “blameability”.

The analyses of eight policy issues indicate the need for improving social learningcapacity; but the book does not give much attention to how governments can transformthemselves into learning organizations.

Most researchers assume that learning is absolutely “good,” marching hand in handwith desirable policy change, satisfactory individual behavior, enriched knowledgebase, and enhanced organizational capability. However, this is too good to be true. It isnot that learning in the positivist sense is impossible, but unless we recognize the polit-ical process of learning we will find it difficult to achieve organizational and policylearning. Writers like Sabatier have argued that learning in the “core belief system” isnot manageable, and difficult to achieve. But without changing the core belief systems,wicked problems hardly be solved.

The three books all step away from the traditional view in this regard, but not veryfar. Geppert recognizes the non-cumulative nature of learning and the importance ofactors’ interests and interpretation, but does not explore the difficulties of traditionalresearch. Rosell criticizes the traditional approach for framing learning as an effort tofinding lasting solutions, usually in technical terms, and proposes that governmentshould strengthen the ongoing learning process to reconstruct shared mental maps andframeworks of interpretation. He acknowledges Gregory Bateson’s learning catego-ries: zero learning, learning I (single-loop), learning II (double-loop), learning III(change in the system of alternatives from which choice is made). Similarly, Paquetcontends that learning is not only adaptive, but also generative—creating and adjust-ing goals, norms, and assumptions as required. He argues that social learning can onlycome with practice and action, and cannot be spelled out ex ante the design of policy-in-the-making.

How to apply organizational learning in public organizations? This is not inGeppert’s interest, since he focuses on business organizations. Rosell and Paquet doattend to this question, but they are more interested in government’s role in building alearning society. Rosell and Paquet discuss a number of social factors that affect learn-ing, such as culture, social capital, decentralization, and empowerment. They empha-size the need to balance the administrative discretion required by learning and theadministrative accountability required by law. Rosell advocates a transformation fromthe control-based accountability system into a value-based one, but how this mightworks remains unclear. They take social factors into account, but these are generalrather than specific to government organizations.

Kaifeng YangRutgers University, Newark


CALL FOR PAPERSPPMR seeks articles and commentaries, from practitioners and academicians alike, on public administration and

public management, as well as proposals for featured topics (groupings of three to five articles on a particular subject).Manuscripts (five copies) should be sent to: Robert Cunningham, Dept. of Political Science, University of Tennessee,Knoxville, TN 37996; and correspondence regarding featured-topic proposals should be sent to: Marc Holzer,Editor-in-Chief, Graduate Dept. of Public Administration, Hill Hall, Rutgers University, 360 King Blvd., Newark, NJ07102.

Manuscripts are evaluated for substance, methodology, salience, originality, clarity of presentation, utility toPPMR readers, and their relevance to previously published literature in the field. Contributors are encouraged to relatetheir articles to earlier PPMR articles. PPMR’s editorial board seeks to decide on a manuscript’s suitability within 3months; publication normally takes place 6 to 9 months thereafter.

Manuscripts should be between 15 and 25 pages and must be original work. Articles accepted, published, or sub-mitted for publication elsewhere cannot be accepted by PPMR. If an article contains material reproduced from othersources, the necessary written permission from the author(s) and publisher must accompany the manuscript.

INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORSPublic Performance and Management Review is cosponsored by the Section on Public Performance and Manage-

ment of the American Society for Public Administration and by the National Center for Public Productivity. Pub-lished since 1975, PPMR focuses on the need for greater understanding of issues in public productivity.

PPMR encompasses all administrative, technical, legal, economic, social, and political factors influencing theproductivity of public and nonprofit organizations and agencies. Its objectives are to facilitate the development of in-novative techniques and encourage a wider application of those already proven; stimulate research and critical think-ing about the applicability to the public sector of lessons from the private sector and vice versa; present integratedanalyses of theories, concepts, strategies, and techniques dealing with productivity and related questions of measure-ment, labor relations, capital investment, human capital, efficiency and effectiveness, organizational goals, and legal,political, and technological constraints or concerns; establish a persistent and recurring impetus for productivity im-provement at all levels of government and across the full range of public sector functions; provide a forum forpractitioner-academician exchange; and draw together citations to the literature.

MANUSCRIPT PREPARATIONType all copy double-spaced—including references and extracts—leaving margins at least one inch wide. Use letter-

quality printers rather than dot matrix, and type or print on one side only of high-quality nonerasable bond paper. The titlepage should include the title of the article, the names and primary affiliations of the author(s), and a brief abstract. To facili-tate the blind review process, make sure information about authors appears only on the title page. Spell out e.g., i.e.,et al., . . . to their English equivalents and avoid complex mathematical symbols when possible.

Citations and references. Do not use footnotes. For literature citations in text, supply author surname and date ofpublication and include the original page number for each direct quotation and statistic. For example: Knight (1973)or Knight and Jones (1975, p. 74). Provide a double-spaced alphabetized list of only those references cited in the text,using the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed.):

Journal ArticleAussieker, B., & Garbarino, J. W. (1973). Measuring faculty unionism: Quantity and quality. Industrial Relations,

12(1), 117-124.

BookAbbot, F. C. (1958). Government policy and higher education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Chapter in a BookRiesman, D., & Jencks, C. (1962). The viability of the American college. In N. Sanford (Ed.), The American college:

A psychological and social interpretation of higher learning (pp. 117-124). New York: Wiley.Figures and tables. Clean copies of figures should accompany the manuscript. Upon acceptance, authors should

provide camera-ready artwork (original illustrations or good-quality photographic reprints). Tables should be typeddouble-spaced on separate pages and table notes should be keyed to the body of the table with letters rather than num-bers or asterisks. All figures and tables should have short descriptive titles.

PUBLICATION PROCESSAfter a manuscript is accepted for publication, authors are asked to sign a letter of agreement granting the pub-

lisher the right to copyedit, publish, and copyright the material. The editors and authors are responsible for proofread-ing each issue. However, authors should ensure the accuracy of all statements—particularly data, quotations, and ref-erences—before submitting manuscripts.