There are many arguments that have been raised concerning the difference between public management and business/private management. Graham Allison claims that they are the same in all ways which are not important (Boyne, Law, Powell, & Walker, 2003). Management can be defined as the process of organizing and directing resources so that a desired result can be achieved. Allison focused on general managers, who are tasked with managing the whole units. The roles that the general managers play both within the organization and outside the organization were the strongpoints of Allison. This is where she brought her arguments. She compares the managers who have served in the government and in the private sector. She argues that management is concerned with common things as organizing, planning, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting. Allison argues here that all these functionalities are what are seen in private and public offices. There are no differences that can be said to exist with this. She is quick to say that if this is the basis where comparison is undertaken, then there is no difference between these two sectors (Boyne, Law, Powell, & Walker, 2003).
Regarding public choice theory, there are changes that have been seen in the management of the public sector. The arguments here are that there should be application of management bureaucracies in smaller sectors. The point here is that the government is too big and should be subdivided into smaller sectors. This way, the management of these services will be governed in a better way. The difference that comes in here is that time management and perspectives are notable between public and private management. Public sector management has shorter time perspectives as compared to those in the private sector that tend to have a longer time perspective. This could be because of political and organizations goals. Another difference between the two sectors is the duration of management. In public management, there is a shorter time to manage. This is because most of these management positions are appointed through the government. Another perspective is that of performance measurement. This is lacking in public management. There is lack of agreements and goals that are set in the public sector management. This is not the case with private management where this is advocated and is the quality yardstick of private managers. Most private managers are evaluated basing on the performance (Boyne, Law, Powell, & Walker, 2003).
Then there is the notion of new public management. There is a lot of reinvention in the government in the way services are being managed. They have been referred to as business process reengineering, new public management. This paper will analyze this new model f managing the public management using this criterion. There is a new way of doing business in the public sector. There is a revolutionary change process, which is seen to be taking place in the public. Instead of coming up with a totally new way of doing business in the public sector, the model has been developed from the old models with keen interest in the areas where the government has been getting problems before. Most governments have been seen to be entrepreneurial in their dealing of the service providers by promoting competition between the service providers. This way, the citizens are empowered by taking control out of the bureaucracy to the community. There is a paradigm shift where the clients are redefined by being offered choices; problems are being solved before they occur rather than offering services to solve the impact of the problem. More energy is seen to be focused on earning money and not devising ways of spending it. There is more emphasis on participatory management where it is encouraged by decentralization. There is also more emphasis on catalyzing all sectors and not providing services alone. This way, the community are seen to be n the front line in solving their own problems (Boyne, Law, Powell, & Walker, 2003).
For establishing an absolute, and a tell apart, picture of public management reforms, there are three dimensions to focus on. The first dimension is on time, in the good judgment of management reforms having established in the heyday of the New Public Management in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the budges in approaches portrays a haze of the unevenness of the ‘text book’ case. Connected to the larger time dimension is the view that the public management reforms are effects to earlier reforms and their responses other than the inventive blue print ideas exercised. In context of public policy, such responses have been interpreted basing on the succession policy and the recent most public management account reforms in Britain.
The second dimension centered on the canons that have drive the blue print of public management reforms and are connects to the identity that the shopping basket of NPM incorporates to a greater extent gainsay recipes and canons that relate to freedom of management and decentralization. It also includes performance accountability and on the other hand increased top down control (Fernandez, & Rainey, 2006).
Various government departments and agencies are determined to offer various high quality and much better services to the public, to present advice to the state heads, ministers and provide vivid information more widely to the executive branch of government so as to work in an efficient manner, more accessible and a transparency way. It has been seen in many developing countries that the government in leadership mostly fails due to reform fatigue.
The public sector reform program mains objective is to focus on the managers and the heads of departments involved in the planning, design and implementation of these programs. These helps mainly in improving service delivery by use of a logical approach that supports up to date techniques. This technique is mostly helpful and valuable for officials responsible for planning, supporting and implementing this reform programs across the whole government.
The programme’s main purpose is to have an overview of the reform in a manner that can be of help and development to a country that is established on a rigorous policy analysis approach that stresses on designing and introducing change in order to upgrade their delivery on their services. The improvements on service delivery are such as organizational development, capacity building and performance management. The remedy to this service delivery and the frequent use of practical toolkits will contribute greatly in implementation of these reform programs (Hood, 2005).
Adherence to Allison’s case of private similarities can affect the management in public sector. This is because the public sector has been seen to be reluctant in implementing changes and policies that will help enhance operations in the public sector. This view will change the way public organizations are managed. There will be improved management of public sector.
Policy science is a science that is concerned with the making of high-level policies in government. With management advocating for better performance, there are various policy models which have been developed. The first policy model that has been developed is that of systems model. This is the policy theory where the public policy is seen as a process where issues are handled (Fernandez, & Rainey, 2006). Issues that are handled will be brought to the system; these include the inputs, pressures, and information. Another policy process theory is that of stages heuristics where a policy is seen to be a cycle where various stages are identified. The policy instruments are identified that will be used to solve a problem. Another theory is that of comprehensive/rational model. In this model, it is assumed that policies are made basing in the social gains that will be achieved. Another model is the bounded rationality model. This is where people are bounded in the policy making process by the responsibilities they have and the roles they play. The institutional model is concerned with how institutions change the way policies are made.
In all these policy process theories, I tend to agree with that of stages heuristics. This is because I believe any issue should be solved in procedures that are stated. There are steps that will be taken to solve a given problem (Kelman, 2005).
Complex adaptive system is a collection of a system which has many components which are undergoing continuous interactions with one another. Factors that will determine the adaptation of public sector to changes include how well they manage change. With the competition that is seen in the world today, there is a need to have change and handle it well whenever there is a need. Change management is an important concept in handling rapidly changing environments. Another factor that will help public sector to managing change is the degree of adopting current trends in technology. Technology is a tool that is used by many organizations to bring competitive advantage. The public sector should also embrace information technology in their operations. Technology will help in adapting to complex adaptive system.
Boyne, G., Law, J., Powell, M., & Walker, R. (2003). Evaluating public management reforms. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review , 168-176.
Hood, C. (2005). Public management: The word, the movement, the science. In E. Ferlie, J. Lynn, & C. Pollitt, The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 7-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kelman, S. (2005). Unleashing change: A study of organizational renewal in government. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.