Globalization has posed unprecedented challenges to public administration’s philosophy and practice. Many people believe they understand the benefits of a globalized society. Trade thrives without borders, cultures coexist, and communication and technology link faraway regions to local villages and even to one another in their living rooms (Frederickson et al., 2018). Although major cross-national policy concerns cannot be resolved without international cooperation, even local issues will be better understood and handled worldwide. Thus, to promote public administration theory development, we must study two significant paradigms: the global perspective of performance and result-driven management and a greater understanding of the world of norms, values, and ethical services.
World of Performance and Results Driven Management
Performance Management Systems (PMSs) have been deployed globally, across various policy areas and at multiple levels of government, as one of the reforms promoted by the New Public Management movement. PMSs require public entities to create clear objectives, track key performance indicators for these objectives, report on this data and eventually connect this data to strategic choices geared at enhancing agencies’ performance (Tomaževič et al., 2017). However, the extent to which PMS components are adopted and implemented varies significantly among nations and levels of government. Thus, to comprehend the function of PMSs in public administration, it is critical to grasp that the motivations for the acceptance of PMS components may be distinct from those for their implementation. While the purpose of any PMS is to improve government performance, the available empirical data on the influence of PMSs on organizational performance is varied, indicating that their adoption may have some unforeseen consequences (Tomaževič et al., 2017). Additionally, although the usage of performance measures is increasing globally, the same cannot be said for their application in decision-making or performance management.
In public administration, performance and result-driven management include three critical concepts: strategic planning, data collection and analysis, and data usage for decision-making. Strategic planning is developing a strategy that establishes the objectives and associates them with their associated performance indicators (Shafritz et al., 2016). The latter is often referred to as performance measurement and entails two steps: data collection; and data analysis and distribution. To do this, public managers must first gather and monitor performance data; they are then required to evaluate and communicate the data to the appropriate decision-makers (Shafritz et al., 2016). Finally, the final notion of performance- and outcome-driven management in public administration requires managers to make choices based on performance data.
In public administration, performance and result-driven management are predicated on two premises. For instance, to begin with, agencies are deemed capable of describing and quantifying their objectives, and of continuing, managers will place their faith in the offered information and utilize it to make future objective choices (George & Pandey, 2017). As a result, performance management should be seen as a system that connects individual performance to the organization’s overall direction through procedures that facilitate the achievement of target objectives. Consequently, each performance and outcome-driven management component in public administration should consider humans.
Synthesis of Performance and result-driven management in public administration
Developing an effective performance-and result-driven management system in public administration did not coincide. Developing an effective performance-and result-driven management system in public administration involves a well-designed system that will clearly define roles and performance requirements (Laihonen & Mäntylä, 2017). We now see this as an essential prerequisite for initiating the first performance and result-driven management component in public administration: strategic planning. Similarly, it contends that for performance and result-driven management to contribute strategic value in public administration, it must be aligned with the results desired by the public agency. To reinforce this concept, underline the critical nature of seeing each component as an essential part of the overall performance and result-driven management in public administration rather than as discrete occurrences. Strategic planning should be seen as the first step in routine and results-driven management in public administration (Laihonen & Mäntylä, 2017). Reviewing organizational goals, policies, processes, and structures before initiating measurement is critical since the indicators chosen for size should represent the organization’s objectives.
Apart from having clearly defined objectives, it is also vital for the system to include stakeholders in the first and second ideas successfully. Employee and management participation in creating goals and indicators ensures that the people impacted own the measurement and encourages them to utilize performance data in their decision-making (Bryson & George, 2020). Additionally, stakeholder engagement enhances the impression of the performance system’s legitimacy among those participating. For instance, reviewing performance agreements and indicators and processes for dealing with poor performance are included to encourage employee participation. For example, performance and result-driven management in public administration may also involve coaching, training, and mentorship to assist employees in meeting organizational objectives and rewarding and recognizing those who achieve or surpass expectations (Bryson & George, 2020). To summarize, the adoption of performance- and results-driven management in public administration involves input from lower levels of government.
Along with considering an organization’s human resources when developing a compelling performance and result-driven management system in public administration, it is critical to emphasize the performance system’s integration with the organization’s broader corporate management structure. When evaluating current performance management innovations in the United States, successful performance and result-driven management in public administration include establishing procedures that facilitate the intentional use of performance data (Gerrish, 2016). The government establishes data collection and distribution procedures, but not for data use in management, program, or resource allocation decisions. Consequently, performance data was passively used to comply with the standard. On the contrary, successful performance and result-driven management in public administration should create procedures that facilitate the integration of measurement and strategic planning by establishing routines that encourage managers to utilize performance data in strategic planning.
Benefits of Performance and result-driven management in public administration
Countries implementing performance management systems in their public sector organizations have seen tremendous changes, resulting in good economic development. Because they are outcome-driven rather than compliance-driven, performance and result-driven management in public administration enables agencies to be inventive in their program implementation (van der Kolk & Kaufmann, 2018). Performance and result-driven management have become ingrained in contemporary governance. There is an ongoing desire for more and better services at a lower cost, which has resulted in an increased emphasis on assessing results and inputs; and an increased emphasis on understanding and meeting the requirements of residents.
Performance and result-driven management in public administration may offer critical and essential performance calibration. The organization’s purpose, structure, supporting procedures, and performance tools and measures align (Wynen & Verhoest, 2016). This alignment ultimately enables the definition and measurement of relevant KPIs and the existence of a closed-loop system for incorporating analyses back into the organization. At its core, public administration’s performance and outcome-driven management should influence outcome management via continual cost, quality, and customer service optimization (Wynen & Verhoest, 2016). Governments that have appointed technocrats to manage government departments have outperformed those that have not since the leader is not constrained by political allegiance.
Implications and effects of Performance and result-driven management in public administration
Enhancing public services is fundamentally subjective and political. As a result, no single criterion exists for judging whether public services improve their outcomes. However, standard evaluation criteria for public service development include the quantity and quality of outputs, efficiency, equality, results, value for money, and customer satisfaction (Jourdan & Kivleniece, 2017). Each dimension is likely to be impacted by a variety of distinct factors. Efficiency-enhancing variables may impair service quality and consumer pleasure concurrently. Alternatively, although some drivers directly impact the number of outputs, their effect on other performance indicators may depend on different factors.
It is critical to identify the agency’s products, outputs, and results when adopting performance and result-driven management in public administration. Thus, for performance and result-driven management to work effectively in public administration, it is critical to provide the relevant data; the performance information must indicate anything about the performance indicator (Wynen et al., 2016). However, given the nature of certain agencies’ operations, defining their outputs and allocating expenditures (including time) to their results may be challenging. This obstructs the development of performance measurements and their subsequent application in decision-making. It is critical to differentiate between these two conceptions in this respect. The outputs of an organization are the products and services it produces, while the outcomes are the goals the company seeks to accomplish via its results. Given the diverse natures of organizations, it is critical to define goods and outputs precisely to execute performance and result-driven management in public administration (Wynen et al., 2016). The General Accounting Office, the Government Accounting Standards Board, and the National Academy of Public Administration all concentrate primarily on outcome indicators in the United States.
The world of norms, values, and ethical service
The world is now experiencing a leadership crisis. We do not find a global humanitarian attitude among leaders today, which is why many material advancements are confronted with ethical, value, and human dilemmas (Rothstein & Sorak, 2017). When we consider our values, we consider what is significant in our lives. Each of us has a variety of values that vary in insignificance. A given value may be significant to one individual but irrelevant to another. Values are not objective, impersonal abstractions but are strongly linked to emotion. Values transcend behaviors and circumstances. They are abstract objectives, which differentiates them from ideas like norms and attitudes, which often pertain to concrete acts, things, or circumstances (Rothstein & Sorak, 2017). Values shape the way actions, policies, individuals, and events are chosen or evaluated. That is, values serve as guidelines or norms.
Core concepts and Features
Values are connected to a culture’s norms but are more abstract and universal than norms. In certain cultures, norms represent the ideals of friendship and support. The genesis of values is a point of contention in ethical philosophy, and it is also a point of contention in organizational theory (Koliba et al., 2017). Public values form a normative framework for citizens’ rights, benefits, and prerogatives. These are the responsibilities of citizens toward society, the state, and one another. Values serve as the driving principles for government and policymaking; they reflect a plurality of views, just as they do in varied civilizations. It is well documented that values influence and shape behavior. Thus, they serve as a foundation for achieving organizational goals that cannot be attained only via steering toward such goals and deserve additional analysis in the context of public service development (Koliba et al., 2017). Values are critical components of organizational culture because they help define, guide, and inform behavior.
Ambiguity, measurement challenges, and inconsistent and contradictory definitions and interpretations all contribute to the difficulty of studying public service concepts. However, since all government acts are motivated by values, it is worthwhile to consider the nature of such principles (Lavena, 2016). Organizations in the public sector work in dynamic situations plagued with conflicting expectations and obligations. The process is as important as the product, and public confidence relies on democratic values being reflected throughout the decision-making process. Values serve as a guide for conduct in an uncertain environment undergoing frequent structural and functional changes. If the public service’s work is not founded on and directed by solid principles, it risks losing the faith and respect of those it relies on, the public. While specific values may get more attention than others at any moment due to administrative and political objectives, adhering to a universally recognized and recognized values is critical for stability and consistency (Lavena, 2016). Given that public administrators’ values are formed via the interplay of self, situation, and society, values must be periodically re-examined and challenged.
Ethical behavior and judgment foster public trust, ensure effective resource management and enable the government to protect individual rights while assisting the most disadvantaged. When ethical lapses and scandals arise in government, they endanger the democratic principles of the rule of law, equality, and individual rights (Sumra, 2019). A democratic government’s officials and staff must be independent, impartial, and accountable to the people to function efficiently. Administrative ethics results from several contextual systems and is always evolving and changing. Western state-based public service ethics have been augmented with a more modern emphasis on public service principles. Ethics is a set of commonly held views, morals, and values that shape human behavior (Sumra, 2019). It has been emphasized in private and public life from time immemorial via religious scriptures and philosophers.
When examining ethics and values concerning public administration, one can assert that ethics is concerned with determining what is “wrong,” “good,” “bad,” or “right” and that ethical choices are guided by values that assist actors in determining which course of action to take when confronted with an ethical dilemma. While the ideals of various bureaucracies vary amongst governments, similar ethical concerns are often encountered, most notably about resource management issues (Chapman, 2019). Conflicts between ethical and unethical behavior have increased the necessity of codes (or standards) of conduct and procedural procedures. They serve as a guide or standard against which judgments and actions may be made. Ethics is a subset of values that establishes our broad, socially constructed ethical principles for how the world should function. Values underlie and strengthen all aspects of ethical decision-making, ethical judgment, ethical choice, and ethical action (Chapman, 2019). Understanding the role of values in decision-making illuminates a slew of ethical difficulties in public administration.’
Synthesis of the world of norms, values, and ethical service
Public administration is a profession that provides an extraordinarily diverse variety of options for moral or immoral judgments, ethical or unethical choices and bringing good or harm to others. The general people, the government, their immediate organizations, and law workers are all instances of public servants (Sami et al., 2016). Their function has historically been seen as a component of a linked system that exists alongside but apart from the private sphere. The supremacy of democratic ideology in Western civilization implies that public officials reflect the ideals of the broader population while also acknowledging the need for representative governance (Sami et al., 2016). While public officials execute a wide variety of duties and assume various responsibilities, their employment has certain similar components.
The public servant’s responsibilities are many, complicated, and often seem to clash, yet good public servants recognize and prepare for their varied tasks. These include respecting confidentiality, promoting the public good, regulating, offering sound advice, making judgments, avoiding conflicts of interest, ensuring responsibility to different participants, and treating all coworkers fairly (Sumra, 2019). Public personnel rely on a range of values to guide their behavior and support them in juggling many obligations to accomplish their jobs. Because public service is so complicated, its value system must be unique and job-specific. Due to the intricacy of a value system, its operations are inextricably linked (Sumra, 2019). Consequently, it is critical to have a clear understanding of an organization’s values, and the relevance of a specific value system should be evaluated regularly in light of changing expectations and functions.
Employees in the public sector contribute significantly to implementing public policy and should understand the worth of values in all aspects of their work. Incomprehensibility or ambiguity about values may create ethical and decision-making difficulties and jeopardize organizational coherence by eroding team spirit, fostering organizational uncertainty, and resulting in insufficient external communication (Chapman, 2019). Public administrators are liable for identifying and conveying hidden values inherent in their activities to internal and external stakeholders. Not just people but also politicians and other representatives of stakeholder groups may be considered external customers. There is a case that expanding the public service to include government puts a premium on values such as (political) neutrality and fealty while seeing the service as guardians of the ‘public interest’ places a premium on justice, transparency, and impartiality (Sumra, 2019). Individual components of the public service will have diverse values due to the breadth of bureaucracies’ responsibilities and the differing degrees of direct contact with the public.
Benefits of norms, values, and ethical service in Public Administration
Public officials must be imaginative, impartial, professional, and efficient to improve community and government results. They exhibit leadership traits, are reliable, and operate with integrity. They must demonstrate respect for all people, their rights, and cultural heritage. They must be accountable to the public and transparent in their actions, functioning within the bounds of the law and the extent of their government responsibilities (Lavena, 2016). A public employee is supposed to be apolitical and provide frank, truthful, timely, and factually accurate advice to the government. Administrators and bureaucrats in the public service must exhibit specific ethical behavior to ensure the government system runs well. Delivering services at the forefront Assure the administration’s ‘continuity and transformation.’
For three reasons, public leaders have unique duties to society. First, they are responsible for managing resources entrusted to them by the community. Second, they supply and promote neighborhood services (Lavena, 2016). Thirdly, they make vital decisions that impact all facets of community life. The public is entitled to expect government employees to conduct themselves ethically, professionally, and with an open mind. The community needs to have trust in public employees’ decision-making processes. Public employees’ choices and actions should reflect current government policies and community expectations for professionalism, transparency, and justice, and they are obligated to maintain the same standards of professionalism, transparency, and justice.
Implications and Effects of norms, values, and ethical service in Public Administration
While value conflicts occur in several contexts and at all levels of government, contemporary public sector values face unique obstacles. These basic principles establish the standards of conduct for all civil service members. Each service will have its own set of values based on these fundamental concepts (Hijal-Moghrabi & Sabharwal, 2018). Legislative and administrative restrictions against corruption and ethics are worthless unless successfully implemented. Weak enforcement abilities may be partly explained by the abundance of papers, which hinders access, especially for novice enforcement professionals.
The administrative system’s flaws, including a hierarchical structure, complicated processes, and a lack of monitoring over administrative action, all have an ethical component. Senior officials seem to abuse their discretion and power without being held accountable. Administrative procedures are organized so that routine choices made by frontline personnel often need approval at a higher level of the organizational hierarchy (Hijal-Moghrabi & Sabharwal, 2018). These procedures contribute to the delay and difficulty of obtaining timely decisions and services, contributing to a rise in bribery and petty corruption in service delivery. Processes and procedures must be optimized to avoid unnecessary bottlenecks within organizational systems that facilitate the extraction of bribes from the public. Ethics reforms and anti-corruption measures would be ineffective if the stringent constraints and costly processes that first incentivized bribery and other unethical activity were retained (Stare & Klun, 2016). As the public sector has grown in size and complexity, imposing accountability for the exercise of administrative power has become more challenging.
Government decision-making processes are sometimes long and intricate, making it challenging to identify which public workers should be accountable for recommendations and choices. Another impediment to accountability is the breadth of the authority to whom public workers are held responsible. While it is generally established that codes of ethics serve as a guide for the ethics infrastructure, they also act as a regulating function by establishing and publicizing ethical limits and standards for public workers (Stare & Klun, 2016). Government entities that coordinate the entire ethical framework include legislative committees, central agencies, departments, and newly established independent agencies that oversee public sector ethics (Cooper, 2018). They aid management by coordinating and ensuring the proper operation of all other infrastructure components. They operate directly or indirectly via the delegation of ethical responsibilities to other departments or agencies.
Globalization has presented both the idea and practice of public administration with new problems. Strategic planning has been the primary method for results-driven management in public administration. To start, the first component of performance- and results-driven management in public administration is needed to develop a system that clearly defines responsibilities and performance standards. In addition, employee and management engagement in establishing objectives and indicators guarantees that those affected by the measurement own it and can use performance data for decision making. Similarly, stakeholder participation boosts the perception of the validity of the performance system. Thus, enlarging the public service to include the government sets a premium on (political) neutrality and allegiance while seeing the service as protectors of the ‘public interest’ places a premium on fairness, transparency, and impartiality.
Bryson, J., & George, B. (2020). Strategic management in public administration. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Web.
Chapman, R. A. (2019). Ethics in public service for the new millennium. In Ethics in public service for the new millennium (pp. 217-231). Routledge. Web.
Cooper, T. L. (2018). Citizenship and professionalism in public administration. In Classics of administrative ethics (pp. 344-357). Routledge. Web.
Frederickson, H. G., Smith, K. B., Larimer, C. W., & Licari, M. J. (2018). The public administration theory primer. Routledge. Web.
George, B., & Pandey, S. K. (2017). We know the Yin—But where is the Yang? Toward a balanced approach on common source bias in public administration scholarship. Review of public personnel administration, 37(2), 245-270. Web.
Gerrish, E. (2016). The impact of performance management on performance in public organizations: A meta‐analysis. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 48-66. Web.
Hijal-Moghrabi, I., & Sabharwal, M. (2018). Ethics in American public administration: A response to a changing reality. Public Integrity, 20(5), 459-477. Web.
Jourdan, J., & Kivleniece, I. (2017). Too much of a good thing? The dual effect of public sponsorship on organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1), 55-77. Web.
Koliba, C., Meek, J. W., & Zia, A. (2017). Governance networks in public administration and public policy. Routledge. Web.
Laihonen, H., & Mäntylä, S. (2017). Principles of performance dialogue in public administration. International Journal of Public Sector Management. Web.
Lavena, C. F. (2016). Whistle-blowing: Individual and organizational determinants of the decision to report wrongdoing in the federal government. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(1), 113-136. Web.
Rothstein, B., & Sorak, N. (2017). Ethical Codes for the Public Administration. A Comparative Survey. Web.
Sami, A., Jusoh, A., Mahfar, M., Qureshi, M. I., & Khan, M. M. (2016). Role of ethical culture in creating public value. International Review of Management and Marketing, 6(4S), 255-261. . (dergipark.org.tr)
Shafritz, J., Russell, E. W., Borick, C., & Hyde, A. (2016). Introducing public administration. Routledge. Web.
Stare, J., & Klun, M. (2016). An analysis of the ethics infrastructure and ethical climate in Slovenian Public Administration. Network of Institutes and Schools of Public Administration in Central and Eastern Europe. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 9(2), 147. Web.
Sumra, K. (2019). Public Service Ethics in Public Administration: An Empirical Investigation. International Journal of Law and Political Sciences, 13(10), 1338-1349. norms, values, and ethical service in public administration – Search (bing.com)
Tomaževič, N., Tekavčič, M., & Peljhan, D. (2017). Towards excellence in public administration: organisation theory-based performance management model. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 28(5-6), 578-599. Web.
van der Kolk, B., & Kaufmann, W. (2018). Performance measurement, cognitive dissonance and coping strategies: Exploring individual responses to NPM-inspired output control. Journal of Management Control, 29(2), 93-113. Web.
Wynen, J., & Verhoest, K. (2016). Internal performance-based steering in public sector organizations: Examining the effect of organizational autonomy and external result control. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(3), 535-559. Web.
Wynen, J., Verhoest, K., & Demuzere, S. (2016). Quality management in public-sector organizations: evidence from six EU countries. International Journal of Public Administration, 39(2), 122-134. Web.