ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: UNDERSTANDING THE SEARCH FOR PRIVATE SECTOR MANAGEMENT MODELS
AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Douglas A. Brook
School of Public
Policy
George Mason
University
Administrative
reform movements in American government are often characterized by the idea
that government can or should be run like a business. This has resulted in repeated efforts to apply private sector
business management practices to public administration. These reforms appear to assume that private
and public organizations are similar and that management is generic. The literature included in this annotated
bibliography contains comparisons of public and private organizations and
examinations of the sectoral transferability of management practices. The bibliography also explores some current
themes in public and private management reform where private sector practices
are often suggested for the public sector:
personnel administration and financial management. It also includes a section on privatization
– private sector organizations performing public sector work.
For most of this century the idea
that private sector management practices can be applied to government has been
reflected in administrative reform efforts.
Some reforms have been explicit attempts to “run the government like a
business.” Others have incorporated
perceived businesslike practices into broader government reforms. Questions remain; however, about whether
importing private sector practices into government can improve government
performance. More fundamental
uncertainties continue to exist over the assumptions that underlie these
management transplants. Is management
generic? Are public and private
organizations similar? Are business
management practices really superior?
The questions are particularly relevant today as private sector-style
management models dominate current government administrative reform efforts and
market-based reforms introduce alternative ways to deliver government services.
There are
two areas of government management that have consistently been identified as
candidates for more businesslike management – personnel management and
financial management. The rules-based,
highly constrained government personnel management system is often cited as a
target for businesslike reform to make it more flexible, empower its employees,
and provide managers with greater authority to hire and fire. Motivating employees through pay for performance
programs, perceived as commonplace and effective in the private sector, have
been repeated promoted and attempted in the public sector. Public financial management is seen as too
focused on budgets and appropriations, lacking private sector-type requirements
for reliable financial reporting and record keeping. In addition to these internal government management reforms, the
emergence of a strong privatization movement has introduced what may be the
ultimate private sector-based reform: private organizations performing
governmental functions.
This
annotated bibliography presents a representation of scholarly inquiry into
various aspects of the question of public/private management reform. Section I presents the context for
discussing public and private organizations.
Understanding the comparisons of public and private organizations is
essential to the question of whether management techniques are transferable
across sectors. Section II is a listing
of books and papers that explore the major themes in public and private
management reform. Sections III and IV deal with two specific subjects for
businesslike management reform in the federal government: (1) personnel
management reforms aimed at motivating employees through incentive
compensation; and, (2) financial management reforms reflected in the
business-style financial reporting requirements initiated by the Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990. Finally, to round out the context of private
sector approaches to public management, Section V addresses the privatization
movement.
I. Organizational Context: Comparing Management in the Public and Private Sectors
A.
Approaches
to Organizational Theory in the Public and Private Sectors
Drucker, Peter
(1973). “Managing in the Public Service
Institution.” The Public Interest 33
(Fall): 43-60.
Noted management expert Drucker examines
three commonly held reason why public service organizations under-perform:
managers are not “businesslike,” the quality of their employees is low, and
their objectives and results are too intangible. Six prescriptions are offered to improve performance: better
definition of the organization’s business, clear objectives and goals,
priority-setting, measure of performance, systemized feedback from the results,
and an organized audit of objectives and results.
Fottler, Myron D.
(1981). “Is Management Really
Generic?” Academy of Management Review
6 (1): 1-12.
A typology of organizations includes four
categories: private for-profit, private non-profit, private quasi-public, and
public. Differences are defined by the sources
of their support. These externalities
create different values, incentives, and constraints on management. Analysis of sectoral effects on management
functions gives evidence that management is not generic. There appear to be differences in how management
operates between public and private for-profit organizations. The other two
categories show intermediate differences.
Frederickson, H.
George (1997). The Spirit of Public
Administration. San
Francisco: Josse-Bass.
Public administration could be the key to
improving the quality of public organizations.
Broader concepts of public administration go beyond government. The management values of public
administration include not only efficiency and economy, but also citizenship,
fairness, equity, justice, ethics, responsiveness and patriotism.
Gulick, Luther
(1937). “Notes on the Theory of
Organization,” in Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde, (eds.) (1992). Classics of Public Administration, 3rd
Edition. Pacific Grove:
Brooks/Cole.
Gulick’s classic paper describes the
common elements of generic management.
These became known as PODSCORB -- planning, organizing, directing,
staffing, coordinating, reporting and budgeting. They were long considered essential elements of management in all
types of public and private organizations.
Kettl, Donald F.
and H. Brinton Milwards, (eds.) (1996).
The State of Public Management. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
The editors present public management as
a new field, focusing on performance over structure, and employing
multi-disciplinary approaches to management issues. Essays explain the disciplinary foundations of public management
and the influence of organizational networks.
Milgrom, Paul F.
and John Roberts (1992). Economics,
Organization, and Management.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
This is a comprehensive textbook on
economic explanations for organizational structure and behavior. It includes a detailed economic review of
the concept of efficiency in organizations and the economic foundations for
individual and group incentives. Public
sector organizations are not specifically addressed, but many of the concepts
discussed here help to inform current reform and public choice debates.
Moe, T. M.
(1984). “The New Economics of
Organization.” American Journal of Political
Science 28: 739-777.
A review of the literature on an economic
approach to organizational theory emphasizes such elements as the contractual
nature of organizations, markets vs. hierarchies, transaction costs,
rationality of individual actions, and analysis based on economic methods. When applied to public bureaucracies,
economic theory can address questions of public organizations vs. alternative
arrangements, managerial control within the bureaucracy, and political control
of bureaucratic agents. Implicit is a
comparison of public and private sector organizational environments.
Ott, J. S., A. C.
Hyde and J. M. Stalitz (eds.) (1991). Public
Management: The Essential Readings.
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
This volume is a collection of noted
works that represent important themes in scholarly thought on central issues of
public administration. Major topics
include public management concepts, information management, privatization,
rationality and accountability, planning and control, budgeting and financial
management, and human resource management.
Shafritz, Jay M.
and Albert C. Hyde (eds.)(1992). Classics
in Public Administration, 3rd Edition. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.
This collection contains arguably the
most important scholarly works on public administration in terms of the
establishment of new paradigms and the enduring nature of the arguments. Topical areas include the nature of public
administration, political context, bureaucracy, organizational theory,
management of human and financial resources, program evaluation, policy
analysis, and ethics. Authors range
from Woodrow Wilson and Max Weber to Maslow, Gulick, Taylor and V. O. Key.
Taylor, Frederick
(1929). “Scientific Management,” in Jay
M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde (eds.) (1992). Classics of Public
Administration, 3rd Edition. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.
Text of Taylor’s historic Congressional
testimony in which he lays out the four principles of scientific
management. The principles are based on
developing information about the work to be performed, selecting and developing
workers, organizing the work and the workers, and dividing the work between
workmen and management. The idea is to
replace rules of thumb with scientific information and organized work.
Waldo, Dwight
(1981). The Enterprise of Public
Administration: A Summary View.
Novato: Chandler and Sharp.
This broad overview of public
administration includes prescient views of future issues. The author discusses the emergence of new
conceptions of what is public and private, and predicts challenging new
interpretations of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
Wilson, James Q.
(1989). Bureaucracy: What Government
Agencies Do and Why They Do It.
New York: Basic Books.
A descriptive analysis of public
organizations is presented through examples, case studies and explanatory
discussion. Comparisons between public
and private management are woven throughout the book. Government is seen as driven by the constraints on the
organization, not by its tasks. Government managers have limited incentives to
use to motivate workers and they have less control over the inputs and mix of
organizational resources than do private managers. Public managers must be concerned with issues of accountability
and equity. There are few incentives or opportunities to achieve economic
efficiency.
Wilson, Woodrow
(1887). “The Study of Administration,”
in Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde (eds.) (1992). Classics of Public Administration, 3rd Edition. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.
Wilson’s classic study of
administration. He argues the
similarity of public and private sector administration and he proposes the
politics-administration dichotomy on which much of subsequent administrative
study and reform has been based.
B.
Comparing
Organizations in the Public and Private Sectors
Appleby, Paul,
(1945). “Government is Different,” in Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde
(eds.)(1992). Classics of Public Administration, 3rd Edition.
Pacific Grove: Brooks-Cole.
Appleby’s classic article argues that
government is different from all other aspects of society. Concern for the public interest defines the
distinctiveness of government people and organizations.
Bozeman, Barry
(1987). All Organizations Are Public. San Francisco: Josse-Bass.
A dimensional view of the public-private
dichotomy is proposed. All
organizations are public. Their degree
of “publicness” is determined by the degree to which organizations are affected
by political authority or dependent upon public resources. The question of publicness is seen as having
consequences for attempts to transfer management technologies and for
understanding employee motivation.
Bozeman, Barry and
Stuart Bretschneider (1994). “The
‘Publicness Puzzle’ in Organizational Theory:
A Test of Alternative Explanations of Differences Between Public and
Private Organizations.” Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory 4 (2): 197-223.
The authors offer the concept of
“publicness” as the extent to which an organization is influenced by political
authority. From this concept, a
continuum can be created to replace the dichotomous choice between public and
private organizations. This dimensional
approach offers additional explanatory power to explorations of the differences
between public and private organizations.
Bozeman, Barry and
S. Loveless (1987). “Sector Context and
Performance: A Comparison of Industrial
and Government Research Units.” Administration
and Society 19 (August): 197-235.
The authors consider the expected differences
between public and private sector organizations. Using questionnaires from an international sample of research
organizations, the results indicate the enduring importance of sector status
and find strong independent effects from the environment of public and private
organizations, One sector is not found
to be consistently more productive than the other, however.
Bretschneider,
Stuart (1990). “Managing Information
Systems in Public and Private Organizations: An Empirical Test.” Public Administration Review 50
(September-October): 536-545.
The author presents another functional
comparison of public and private organizations. Sectoral differences are found in MIS operations, largely based
on the more constrained environments of public organizations. Public
organizations are characterized by greater accountability, interdependence, and
red tape. (“Red tape” is addressed in
many of the works cited in this collection.
Generally it is understood to be an organizational attribute
characterized by “excessive, duplicative or unnecessary procedures” [Bozeman
and Scott, 1996]. While usually
considered a negative organizational trait, it can be considered with a neutral
connotation or even, in some instances as a positive attribute of some types of
organizations.)
Coursey, David and
Barry Bozeman (1990). “Decision-Making
in Public and Private Organizations: A
Test of Alternative Concepts of ‘Publicness’.”
Public Administration Review 50 (September-October): 525-535.
The authors apply Bozeman’s concept of
“publicness” to an analysis of decision-making across a dimensional
distribution of public and private organizations. Drawing on a survey of top executives, differences are found in
participation in strategic decision-making and in the types of problems that
public and private organizations address.
Lan, Zhiyong and
Hal G. Rainey (1992). “Goals, Rules,
and Effectiveness in Public, Private, and Hybrid Organizations: More Evidence
on Frequent Assertions About Differences.”
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2
(January): 5-28.
The authors test hypotheses about the
differences between public and private organizations, using a three-part
typology that includes hybrid organizations.
As expected, the survey responses of public managers indicate perceived
greater degrees of rules, procedures, and constraints in public
organizations. Contrary to
expectations, however, public managers perceive greater clarity of goals and
greater effectiveness in achieving those goals.
Moon, Myung Jae
(1999). “The Pursuit of Managerial
Entrepreneurship: Does Organization Matter?”
Public Administration Review 59 (January-February): 31-43.
This study, based on data collected by
the National Administrative Studies Project, examines three dimensions of entrepreneurship
in public and private organizations.
Public organizations are found to be less entrepreneurial than private
organizations. Size, management trust,
and legal constraints are found to affect the degree of entrepreneurial
activity. To become more
entrepreneurial, organizations must address culture change as well as
reductions in formalism and hierarchy.
Perry, James L.
and Hal G. Rainey (1988). “The
Public-Private Distinction in Organizational Theory: A Critique.” The Academy of Management Review 13
(April): 182-202.
The authors present a thorough review of
the literature on the question of distinctions between public and private
organizations. The variety of
definitions of public and private organizations is explored and the uses to which
the distinctions are put in organizational research are examined. A typology of organizations that is more
complex than the common dichotomous approach is suggested by cross-classifying
organizations based on ownership, funding, and modes of social control.
Rainey, Hal G.,
Robert Backoff and Charles H. Levine (1976).
“Comparing Public and Private Organizations,” Public Administration Review 36 (March-April): 233-244.
This paper examines the proposition that
public and private organizations are converging and that management is a
generic process. A summary of the
literature identifies consensus around environmental factors,
organization-environment transactions, and internal structures and processes. Indications of important differences between
public and private organizations are found.
Ross, Bernard H.
(1988). “Public and Private Sectors:
The Underlying Differences.” Management
Review 77 (May): 28-33.
Focusing on the experiences of business
leaders who assume senior positions in the federal government, this paper
concludes that the sectors are different, not just in matters of efficiency and
rationality, but in the entire organizational milieu. Issues of public scrutiny, non-economic rationality, complex
hierarchies, and external interference dictate that the rules are different.
The requirements for managerial success are different between the public and
private sectors.
Scott, Patrick G.
and Santa Falcone (1998). “Comparing
Public and Private Organizations: An Exploratory Analysis of Three Frameworks.” American Review of Public Administration
28 (June): 126-145.
Using a national sample of public,
private and hybrid research laboratories, the authors test three conceptual
frameworks for comparing public and private organizations. The results show strong support for the core
approach and the dimensional approach to the public/private question. The generic approach, which suggests little
or no difference in the managerial attributes of public and private
organizations, was not supported by the findings.
Weintraub, J.
(1997). “Public/Private: The Limits of
a Grand Dichotomy.” Responsive
Community 7: 13-24.
The author examines the “grand dichotomy”
of public/private. The dichotomous
models are used not only to distinguish between government and business
organizations but other aspects of society as well. The public/private distinction is a useful analytic tool but is
irreducibly multiple and inherently problematic.
C.
Comparing Management in the Public and Private Sectors
Allison, Graham T. (1986). “Public and Private Management: Are They
Fundamentally Alike in All Unimportant Respects?” in Frederick S. Lane, ed. Current
Issues in Public Administration, 3rd Edition. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
The author
identifies eight functions of management common to all organizations, but
argues that functions with identical labels have different meanings in public
and private sector organizations.
Performance and efficiency in public management can not necessarily be
improved by borrowing from private management.
Rather, research, case studies, and reform should focus on public
management issues.
Ban, Carolyn (1995). How
Do Public Managers Manage? Bureaucratic
Constraints, Organizational Culture, and the Potential for Reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
The author
empirically examines the constraints under which public managers manage. Many reform proposals call for relaxing the
constraints. Three areas in which
constraints are identified are the civil service, budgeting, and procurement
systems. They were largely designed to reduce the risk of abuses. Interviews with managers in four agencies
examine the effects of organizational culture on management.
Blumethal, W. Michael and Herman Nickel (1979). “Candid Reflections of a Businessman in
Washington.” Fortune 99 (January):
36-49.
An interview with
Blumenthal, former Bendix Corporation CEO and former Treasury Secretary. He offers observations about the differences
in leadership between public and private organizations. Management success is emphasized in
business, policy success is the measure of accomplishment in government. Differences in organizational control,
public decision-making, and external influences are discussed.
Box, Richard C. (1999).
“Running Government Like a Business: Implications for Public
Administration Theory and Practice.” American
Review of Public Administration 29 (March): 19-43.
The author examines
normative questions associated with the increasing demands to run government
like a business. The conflicts between
market-based values and democratic values are explored through an extensive
literature review. The impacts on
public service values and public administration are questioned.
Bozeman, Barry and
Gordon Kingsley (1998). “Risk Culture
in Public and Private Organizations.” Public
Administration Review 58 (March-April): 109-118.
This study tests the assumption that
public managers are more afraid to take risks than are private managers. The risk cultures of public and private
organizations are also examined. Little
difference is found in the risk orientation of public and private
managers. Organizations with high
involvement with elected officials tend to have less risky cultures. This has
implications for public management reforms that call on public managers to be
more “entrepreneurial.”
Bozeman, Barry and
Patrick Scott (1996). “Bureaucratic Red
Tape and Formalization: Untangling Conceptual Knots.” American Review of Public
Administration 26 (March): 1-13.
The authors review the literature on red
tape and formalization in public and private organizations. Some recent studies suggest that government
is itself a major cause of red tape in both the public and private sectors. Some studies have found little sectoral
difference on measures of red tape and formalization, while others find public
sector organizations to be more constrained by rules and accountability
requirements. The assertion that public
sector organizations are overwhelmingly tied up in red tape is seen as a crude
stereotype.
Bozeman, Barry,
Pamela Reed and Patrick Scott (1992).
“Red Tape and Task Delays in Public and Private Organizations.” Administration and Society 24
(November): 290-322.
The authors explore the assumption that
public organizations have greater degrees of red tape and formalization than
private organizations through an examination of task delays in the two
sectors. Questionnaires from the
National Comparative R&D Laboratory Project were analyzed. Variance within and among institutional
setting is found. The strongest
findings supported sector differences and differences based on government
influence.
Dunlop, John T.,
Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., George P. Schultz and Irving Shapiro (1979). “Business and Public Policy.” Harvard Business Review (November-December):
92-97.
Four former corporate and government
officials discuss their experiences in and with government. Differences between public and private
sector management are identified, including issues of efficiency and equity, incentives
and performance, and the conflicting loyalties of career government executives.
Lynn, Laurence
(1981). Managing the Public’s Business:
The Job of the Government Executive.
New York: Basic Books.
The author addresses major themes in
public management. Pertinent chapters review recent reform proposals: PPBS, MBO
and ZBB as foundations for the question of the dissimilarity of public and
private organizations. If they are
similar, the failure of reform can be blamed on problems with implementation.
If they are dissimilar, applying business management techniques to government
can be futile and counterproductive.
The history of the business-government analogy is reviewed and
distinctions between government and business organizations are identified.
Murray, Michael A.
(1975). “Comparing Public and Private
Management: An Exploratory Essay.” Public
Administration Review 35 (July-August): 364-371.
Substantive and procedural areas of
comparison between public and private sector organizations are examined. The
author argues for the universal applicability of a generic approach to
management and concludes that private and public organizations are more similar
than different.
Rainey, Hal G.
(1997). Understanding And Managing Public
Organizations. San Francisco:
Josse-Bass.
This text examines the context of public
organizations, followed by considerations of dimensions and strategies involved
in organizing, managing, and improving public organizations. Chapters on the public-private distinction
and on motivation and work attitudes include comprehensive literature reviews
and surveys of the issues involved with each topic. The author cautions against oversimplification in defining public
and private organizations. Constraints
on extrinsic rewards in the public sector make intrinsic and public service
incentives more important.
Rainey, Hal G.,
Sanjay Pandey and Barry Bozeman
(1995). “Research Note: Public and Private Managers’
Perceptions of Red Tape.”Public Administration Review 55
(November-December): 565-573.
The authors report on a survey of public
and private sector managers. Public
managers were more likely to perceive personnel rules as a constraint on
linking performance with pay and promotion.
No meaningful difference was found between public and private managers on
perceptions of organizational goal ambiguity.
D. Comparing People in the Public and Private
Sectors
Bellante, D. and
A. N. Link (1981). “Are Public Sector
Workers More Risk Averse Than Private Sector Workers?” Industrial and Labor Relations Review
34 (3): 408-412.
This study confirms the economic
reasoning of previous analyses that, other things being equal, the more risk
adverse person will have a higher likelihood of seeking employment in the
public sector. Equal pay between the
public and private sectors would, therefore, create an excess of labor supply
in the public sector.
Blank, Rebecca
(1985). “An Analysis of Workers’ Choice
Between Employment in the Public and Private Sectors.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review
38 (January): 211-224.
Public and private jobs may differ in
ways other than compensation. This
analysis of workers’ choices finds that “protected” groups – non-whites,
veterans, women – and more highly educated workers prefer government
employment. Concerns for geographic preferences
and job security also influence the choice of public sector employment, as does
the choice of some occupational specialties.
The author concludes that sectoral choice is influenced by more than
compensation.
Bozeman, Barry and
Hal Rainey (1998). “Organizational Rules and the Bureaucratic Personality.” American
Journal of Political Science 42 (January): 163-189.
The authors seek an alternative
explanation for organizational rules.
Instead of looking at sectoral or structural considerations, the
personal characteristics of managers are examined. Managers high on scales of alienation and pessimism tend to want
more rules. Public managers are not
found to prefer more rules than do private sector managers.
Crewson, Philip E.
(1995). “A Comparative Analysis of
Public and Private Sector Entrant Quality.”
American Journal of Political Science 39 (August): 628-639.
The author examines the conventional
wisdom that poor pay, inadequate recruiting, enforced diversity, and
bureaucrat-bashing have discouraged quality entrants from seeking jobs in the
public sector. A review of the
literature, test scores, and surveys indicates that the federal government has
not suffered in the recruitment or retention of quality employees. There is evidence that public employees are
motivated by benefits, security, and the importance of their work.
II.
Themes in
Public Sector Management Reform
A. Private Sector Management Models for the
Public Sector
Conner, Joseph
E.(1983). “The U.S. Government: A Business That Should Be More Businesslike.” Price
Waterhouse Review 27 (3): 2-8.
The Chairman of the Grace Commission Task
Force on Federal Management reports on the recommendation for creation of an
Office of Federal Management to oversee human resources, administrative services,
and management improvement in the federal government. Building on private sector models, the report also calls for a
financial “vice president” for the federal government.
Durst, Samantha L.
and Charldean Newell (1999). “Better,
Faster, Stronger: Government Reinvention in the 1990s.” American Review of Public
Administration 29 (March): 61-76.
Reporting the results of a survey of 153
public executives, the authors find that reinvention activities are generally
seen as increasing productivity, enhancing services, improving performance, and
managing costs. These results should
make the public sector “more competitive.”
Gore, Albert
(1993). From Red Tape to Results: Creating A Government That Works Better and
Costs Less. Report of the National Performance
Review. Washington: GPO.
The full set of NPR reports consists of
this Report, accompanying reports covering individual agencies and functions,
and a resources book. Emphasis is on
ways to streamline, reorient, and decentralize government agencies, processes,
and programs to achieve objectives like cutting red tape, putting customers
first, and empowering employees.
Agency-by-agency recommendations are included with savings estimates
totaling $108 billion from fiscal 1995 to fiscal 1999.
Hammer, M. and
James Champy (1993). Re-engineering
the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. New York: HarperCollins.
The concept of re-engineering is
explained as a fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business
processes to create dramatic improvements. The basic text of re-engineering
makes the case for focusing on customers, competition, and change. Though this book is aimed at business
organizations, the concept of re-engineering has been suggested for government,
as well.
Hennessey, J.
Thomas, Jr. (1998). “’Reinventing’
Government: Does Leadership Make The Difference?” Public Administration Review
58 (November-December): 522-532.
This article reports on a study of the
effects of leadership on reinvention and performance, with further
consideration of organizational culture.
Leadership is the key to both improved performance and more amenable
cultures. This study suggests
leadership as a factor to be considered in reforms that seek better
performance, thus going beyond more common structural or process questions or
the introduction of rewards or incentives.
Ingraham, Patricia
W. (1992). “Commissions, Cycles, and
Change: The Role of Blue Ribbon Commissions in Executive Branch Change,” in
Patricia W. Ingraham and Donald F. Kettl (eds.). Agenda for Excellence: Public Service in America. Chatham:
Chatham House.
Commissions have been a favored mechanism
for addressing perceived management problems in government. The use of commissions persists despite the
uncertainty of past reform efforts.
Many commissions, ranging from the Keep Commission appointed by Theodore
Roosevelt to the Grace Commission under Ronald Reagan, have addressed the
question of making government management more “businesslike.”
Naisbitt, John
(1985). Reinventing the Corporation: Transforming your Job and Your Company for
the New Information Society.
New York: Warner Books.
The private sector reform model for
radical change in information-based processes to achieve performance and
productivity improvements. Intended
initially for the business sector, reinvention became a major public sector
reform movement.
Nichols, K. L.
(1997). “The Crucial Edge of
Reinvention: A Primer on Scoping and Measuring for Organizational Change.” Public Administration Quarterly 21 (4):
405-418.
Identifying the scope of reinvention is
defined as choosing between process control (small reinvention), process
improvement (medium) and process planning (large). Tools of performance measurement are offered with distinctions
between goals, objectives, and targets.
Measurement techniques are discussed.
No difference is suggested between public and private organizations.
Osborne, David and
Ted Gaebler (1992). Reinventing
Government: How the Entrepreneurial
Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
The book that launched the reinventing
government movement establishes the theoretical and practical arguments for
entrepreneurial government. Reinvention
is defined as using resources in new ways to maximize productivity and
effectiveness. It is seen as applicable
equally to the public, private, and voluntary sectors. The focus is on government processes, not on
the policies or purposes of government.
Emphasis is placed on concepts of employee empowerment, competition,
missions, and customer satisfaction.
Osborne, David E.
and Peter Plastrik (1997). Banishing
Bureaucracy: Five Strategies for Reinventing Government. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Most government organizations exist with
dysfunctional systems, have multiple missions, face little competition, and
experience few consequences from their performance. The authors argue that these systems must be changed in order to
build an entrepreneurial government.
Five strategies focus on core functions, consequences for organizational
performance, customer satisfaction, organizational control, and agency culture.
Peters, B. Guy and
Donald J. Savoie (eds.) (1995). Governance
in a Changing Environment. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
The direction of recent changes in
governance has been to make government function more like the private sector in
the belief that it will become at once more efficient, more effective, and more
democratic. Essays explore the changing
environment and consider reform in the context of the political process and
public management.
Peters, Thomas J.
and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons From
America’s Best-Run Companies.
New York: Harper and Row.
One of the earliest in the current cycle
of management reform books. The authors
identify particularly strong attributes of successful companies to suggest that
these qualities can be adopted by other organizations seeking to achieve
excellence. Among the attributes are
people orientation, commitment to product quality and service, strong
organizational cultures, and customer orientation. Many of these ideas appear in later public sector management
reforms.
Schachter, Hindy
L. (1989). Frederick Taylor and the Public
Administration Community: A Reevaluation. Albany: State University of New York Press.
A review of the life and work of Frederick Taylor reviews his approach to management as articulated in Shop Management and The Principles of Scientific Management. The adoption of scientific methods of management by government, particularly through the New York Bureau of Municipal Research, is described. It is argued that differences between private and public organizations were not ignored and wholesale adoption of scientific management principles was not what occurred.