Final Thoughts…

For my last blog entry for the PA6674 Ethics course, I would like to discuss the Code of Ethics for the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA). The ASPA constructed their code of ethics in 1984 to serve as guiding principles for business, professional organizations, and public agencies. The code of ethics includes 5 broad principles, as well as 32 specific sub-principles that I would consider the “dummy’s guide” for how public servants should act. I do not mean any disrespect at all by stating this; but I am giving this list complete respect in that it really is the list of ideals that all public sector employees should read, understand, and follow.

1.    Serve the public interest.  This seems easy enough.  I mean, isn’t this the reason we are working in the public sector?  The public has entrusted us with their hard-earned tax dollars, and the least we could do as their representatives is to listen to what they want us to do with those dollars. While serving the public trust, the ASPA suggests that we should exercise authority with discretion in order to promote the public’s best interest; oppose discrimination and harassment; support the public’s right to know the public’s business;  involve citizens in policy decision making; respond to the public in a manner that is complete and easy to understand; help people when they have to work with the government; and be prepared to make decisions that are not popular. All of these prescriptive statements should be understood and carried out accordingly. As a public servant, this means putting your own ethics aside, and adopting a view of the bigger picture. You may not personally agree with a stance or topic, but if it is in the best interest of the public, and is legal (that’s important!), then you have an obligation as a servant of the public to support it.

2.    Respect the Constitution of the United States of America.  This should be not only a requirement of public servants, but also of all Americans. If you live in the United States, or work in or for the United States, it would be a good idea to read and support its rules and regulations! The ASPA recommends that public servants understand and apply legislation; do what we can to change outdated and obsolete laws; eliminate discrimination; prevent mismanagement of public funds; protect privileged information; protect the rights of whistle blowers; and promote fairness, equality, representation, responsiveness, and due process. Again, this makes sense, but it does raise the question of how do we protect whistleblowers and their rights if the basis of their dissent results in the release of privileged information?

3.    Demonstrate Personal Integrity. The ASPA suggests that we maintain honesty; give others credit for the work that they do; guard against nepotism and improper outside employment; respect all coworkers and the public you serve; take responsibility for your actions; conduct yourself in your duties without partisanship. I feel that personal integrity is the keystone to the entire code of ethics.  If one does not exhibit each of these traits, how can they be expected to accomplish the other standards? 

4.    Promote Ethical Organizations. Promotion of ethical standards must begin from the top-down.  An agency must have ethical leadership that sets an expectation of highly ethical behavior of not only themselves, but of all they members of the organization. The ASPA recommends that organizations enhance and promote open communication; teach all staff to be true to the public good at all times; hold all members accountable for their behavior; be consistent and protect against arbitrary actions; assure due process for administrative dissent; promote accountability through the use of controls; and encourage the adoption and periodic review of an organizational code of ethics.

5.    Strive for Personal Excellence. Do not stand in the way of people who have the drive and motivation to improve themselves.. Create an environment that supports education and encourages advancement, and assume responsibility to remain current on any emerging issues. I found this one interesting, as this standard really does not speak on how personal excellence helps the public, but it is still obvious in its application. Promoting education, advancement, and knowledge of emerging issues will create a healthy, competitive environment within an organization and assure that staff is providing high quality services to their constituents.

It has been my personal pleasure to share my insights with each of you this term. If you have read my blog and wondered what the background image is, I will tell you that it is an elephant.  Ethics is the elephant in my room!

Are we living as a city upon the hill?

This week, one of our assignments was to read and comment on the late President John F. Kennedy’s speech “As a City Upon a Hill”. Kennedy delivered this speech on Monday, January 9, 1961; the genesis of his presidency. He had referenced the phrase as delivered from John Winthrop’s 1630 thesis A Model of Christian Charity that was written while upon the flagship Arabella on his voyage to the brave new world that we call the United States. Winthrop explained:

“For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God's sake.”

But, Winthrop was not the first to use the phrase. The derivation of As a city upon a hill originated with the parable Salt and Light delivered by Jesus during the Sermon on the mount.

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.”

The term as a city upon a hill encourages us to understand the importance of our actions as public servants, Americans, and as human beings. Each of us is being watched and judged by somebody. It could be your parents, siblings, spouses, friends, coworkers, and managers. If you are in the public sector, then taxpayers also have an eye on your actions, and will ultimately use your actions to judge you as a servant, and as a person. Of course, in the end, you have to answer to God in our final judgment.

Back to Kennedy’s speech. It was a pleasure to read, as it speaks to the ideals that I hold dear to me: courage, judgment, integrity, and dedication. It takes courage to stand in the face of opposition to argue for what you think is right. As a public servant, it is your responsibility to define right as those things that are in the best interest of your constituency. Again, they are watching and will judge you accordingly for your

decisions. It takes solid judgment to be an effective, respective public servant. You must use judgment to look at the mistakes of the past and vow not to repeat them. While remembering the mistakes, also reminisce about the good things that happened. Take those good things, refine them, and take them into the future when judging which decisions to make, and which ones to not make. One must have the courage to make those judgments with an emphasis on integrity. Integrity is defined by “the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness”. A public servant must have the integrity to employ ethical decision making in their daily service. As a servant, integrity does not mean just making the right decision, but also making the right decision that are best for the all people involved. Lastly, a public servant must have dedication. Each day, I go to work with the mindset that I am going to do my best, give 100 percent, keep my head held high, and go home with the pride of knowing that I served my public well. 

To personalize Kennedy’s words; if I exhibit courage, judgment, integrity, and dedication in my personal and professional life, I will make decisions that are best not only myself, but for my fellow man.

Ethical Testing Models... A Lot of Choices!

This week, I read about “making ethical decisions”. The article is available via the Santa Clara University School of Applied Ethics (http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/). The article discusses different approaches and tools for deciding right and wrong, including five tests: utilitarian, rights, fairness, common good, and virtue.

Each of the tests provide an evaluator an in-depth view of the concept of deciding right and wrong, based on the approach they wish to use.  What is your end goal?  What type of resolution are you trying to obtain? Which test is best? For my blog this week, I will discuss each of the tests, what defines them, the strengths and weaknesses of each, and other thoughts as they come up!

The utilitarian approach, aka “best outcomes test”, addresses ethical decision making where the consequences or outcomes ultimately determines right and wrong; the correct choice is the one that creates

the most good for the most people… or, creates the least harm for the most people. Every person’s choice receives equal consideration, regardless of their position, power, or need. What I would see as a weakness of the utilitarian approach is that it is built on compromise. An outcome may not always lead to the best decision possible, but it does result in what I would consider to be the “best average” decision for all. A best outcomes approach would yield decisions that consider both sides on a basis of equality.

The rights approach is comprised of three different tests: rights, exceptions, and choices. Each test takes a different viewpoint in its application, which I find confusing. The rights test views right and wrong as it is based on what a person considers themselves entitled to, or what is termed a “human right”. It provides a way of recognizing people for their intrinsic value (how they feel about themselves), as well as their extrinsic value (how others perceive them). A right is considered to be something that is necessary for one’s self worth, dignity, freedom, or well-being. The exceptions test, aka the “extra slack” test, takes the rights test a bit further by asking us to look into ourselves “are we making an exception for ourselves that we would not for others”?  Basically, if we make an ethical decision, would it be ethical if everyone made the same decision? How would the world be if everyone did what we did? The choices test works on the pretense that everyone should have the choice to decide what the best decision is for them. People would be free to make choices based on what their priority is, and their priorities have no more or less value than any other person’s. The strength of the rights test is that it is a very common and accepted topic, and there is a good chance that people support individual rights. The weakness of the rights test is that the thought of human rights is completely subjective and is influenced by culture, location, and time. Your view of human rights is probably different than mine!

The fairness and justice test looks at right and wrong differently, based on who you are and what you have accomplished. It considers that what is right is dependent on the criteria of efforts, accomplishments, contributions, needs, contracts, seniority, relationship or in‐group status. If you worked harder on a task or project, then you should be entitled to a larger reward then one who did not contribute as much. The strengths of the fairness and justice test is that it awards high achievers and punishes poor performers. The weakness with the fairness test is that what is considered higher efforts, contributions, and needs vary greatly from person to person. This test leaves a lot of room for discussion and debate.

The common good test places the focus of right and wrong on the idea of whether the results of a decision causes more good and less harm to a specific situation.  While the common good test shares aspects of the utilitarian test, it possesses a narrower focus and is not concerned with making a decision that results in the greatest good or the least amount of harm as a whole, but on a small part of that particular situation. The strengths of the common good test is that it forces groups to realize that success can be dependent on externalities and cannot be controlled, and that decisions must be made with a consideration to the effects
placed on those externalities. The weakness of the common good test is that, like the other tests…  is subject as to what is considered the best answer, or in this case, the one that is best for the common good.

The virtue test is based on making the choice that represents the type of person, or organization, you want to be.  When you make a decision for your organization based on the virtue test, you select the choice that presents the organization exactly as intended. The strength of the virtue test is that it focuses on the organization and the how they want portray themselves, encouraging ethical behavior among its members. The weakness of the virtue test is that humans do not act in a consistent manner, and this lack of consistency will reflect in inconsistent ethical decisions.

Which of these tests are the best for you and your organization?  My belief is that it is completely dependent on the situation. When you are confronted with an ethical dilemma, determine which test model best fits the situation.

Have a great week!

Passion and the need for an open government

This past week, I studied transparency, whistle-blowing, and dissent in public administration. In addition, Dr. E. assigned us Letter from a Birmingham Jail as written by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in April, 1963. This week’s blog entry might seem a little disjointed to the reader, as I am going to discuss two different topics.  First, I will give my thoughts on Dr. King’s letter and how aspects are sadly still alive today. Second, I will discuss transparency in government. My original blog was going to be focused on transparency, but Dr. King’s letter moved me to write on it as well, so please bear with me.

         I have to admit that I have never read any of Dr. King’s letters, but when I read Letter from a Birmingham Jail, I could not stop.  Dr. King’s writing is so eloquent, powerful, and moving to me.  The letter
itself addresses the problems that occurred during the civil rights movement in the 1960’s, and addresses what was, and in many ways, still is to some degree, wrong with our society. Dr. King’s biggest disappointment was not only with those who proponents of segregation, but also with those who supported integration, but chose not to act on their support.

         The words that struck my heart solidly was Dr. King’s exclamation that “we will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people” (King Jr., 1963). This really got me thinking about today’s society, and the complaining that people do for the sake of complaining.  People become frustrated with government decisions and actions taken (or lack thereof), but generally their complaints are never followed through with any action.  What does complaining do if it doesn't lead to action? Nothing. I see inaction in the workplaces. I see inaction in our homes. I see inaction in our marriages.  This adds up to inaction in our society. It used to be that if something was broke, people would pitch in and fix it. Today, if people try to pitch in and fix a problem, there are more standing idly by and complaining about how the fix is now the problem, and how better it would have been if they would have fixed it.  If that is the case, please stand up and act!
I have thoroughly loved this class, as well as writing this blog.  It has brought out the idealist in me!  I have worked in government now for almost twelve years.  I have seen the worse as well as the best aspects of government.  I can honestly say that every chapter I have read in Combating corruption, encouraging ethics: a practical guide to management ethics has spoken to me, and sadly enough, I have been able relate real-world examples to each subject.

          In my job, transparency in government means that my books are open for public viewing (as they should be).  This includes our budgeting process our financial reports, even individual transactions can be viewed if the public requests it.  But, transparency does not only mean that our books are open, to me it also transcends into many other aspects of government through the sunshine laws that have been put into place. “Sunshine laws make meetings, records, votes, deliberations and other official actions available for public observation, participation and/or inspection” (Investopedia, 2014). An example of my government’s work towards transparency can be found in the publishing of our annual financial report, or CAFR, which can be
found at http://www.co.benton.or.us/finance/documents/benton_county_cafr_2012.pdf, our annual list of expenditures, available at: http://www.co.benton.or.us/finance/documents/transparencyreportFY2012-13.pdf, and our biennial budget document, which is available at http://www.co.benton.or.us/budget/documents/1315/documents/AdoptedBudgetDraftone-Finalwithblanksandfootersrevised8-7-2013wlinks.pdf.

          An excellent example of government transparency can be found on a program titled “dashboard” that is available on the City of Albany, Oregon website at http://www.cityofalbany.net/departments/finance/budget-information/about-the-dashboard. The City of Albany provides this excellent tool that will allow a citizen to perform lookup functions of the City’s financial activities. “The Albany Dashboard is a new tool in providing up-to-date financial and performance data to the residents of Albany” (City of Albany, 2014).

          Transparency does not only open the door to financial statements, but also to meeting minutes and calendars. Our County’s Board of Commissioners conduct their meetings in a transparent environment that allows for public viewing with in person or to read via published minutes. The only exception to the requirement for open meetings is in the case of “executive sessions”. Executive sessions are closed meetings where sensitive information (such as the hiring/firing of public officials, labor negotiations, etc) can be shared and discussed between the governing body. In Oregon, an executive session can be announced at the beginning of a public meeting so that the general public understands that a portion of a normally public meeting will be held privately.  An example of the schedule of meetings is available at: http://www.co.benton.or.us/boc/meetings.php. Another great tool  for transparency is available through the City of Corvallis, Oregon at http://www.corvallisoregon.gov/index.aspx?page=69.  Here you can find videos of the City Council meetings from 2008 to present day.  This gives the citizens of Corvallis a great option if they are interested in what is going on in their government, but either forgot or cannot attend the meeting at the scheduled time and place.
       
          Is transparency of good thing?  Of course it is.  “Political scientists maintain that nontransparent institutions, low-paid public servants, and a shortage of independent and well-functioning market mechanisms are antecedents of corruption” (Luo, 2007, p. 75). Essentially, transparency helps make government accountable for their actions while minimizing the fostering atmosphere for corruption.

That is all for now.  Have a great week, and go be part of the solution!

References

City of Albany, O. (2014). About the Dashboard. Retrieved from City of Albany, Oregon Government:       http://www.cityofalbany.net/departments/finance/budget-information/about-the-dashboard

Investopedia. (2014). Sunshine Laws. Retrieved from Investopedia US: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sunshinelaws.asp

King Jr., D. M. (1963, April 16). Letter from a Birmingham jail. Retrieved from Historical Text Archive: http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?action=read&artid=40

Luo, Y. (2007). Understanding fraud, waste, and corrupt practices. In W. L. Richter, & F. Burke, Combating corruption, encouraging ethics: a practical guide to management ethics (pp. 75-78). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

A noble lie is still lying, cheating, and deceit

This week my ethics class studied lying, cheating, and deception.  I particularly enjoyed studying this chapter because I think it addresses all of the things that are wrong in the public sector. Please do not misinterpret my words; I do not think that all government lies, cheats, or deceives their constituency. The overwhelming majority of government is committed to providing the best services possible with the funds they are provided.

One of the readings discussed “The Nobel Lie”.  This is a term where a lie or act of cheating or deceit is
carried out for the potential to reach a larger, better goal. Sissela Bok (2007) discusses:

 “I have shown how lies in times of crisis can expand into vast practices where the harm to be averted is less obvious and the crises less and less immediate; how white lies can shade into equally vast practices no longer so harmless, with immense cumulative costs; and how lies to protect individuals and to cover up their secrets can be told for increasingly dubious purposes to the detriment of all” (p. 105). 

Bok continues to offer the idea that when a white lie is combined with deceit to avoid harm, the duty to protect one’s secrets, and the quest for public good, it can result in potentially dangerous decision making and deceit.

A later reading touched on falsifying documents in the quest for the greater good. A contracting officer for the Department of Defense is trying to release a quarter of a million dollars of equipment held in customs. The officer has a time-sensitive notarized document that will release the equipment, but will expire, rendering it void. Out of desperation, the officer contacts his legal counsel asking for advice.  Legal counsel coerced the officer to falsify the document by cutting and pasting a new expiration date onto the document. The
officer submits the falsified document, the equipment is released from customs, and the officer receives praise for his outstanding work in avoiding additional delays. The officer felt that falsifying the document was the only way to avoid further delay, it wasn't going to hurt anyone, and the only people who knew of the unethical act were him and the legal counsel who assisted him. Do you think that the officer’s actions were immoral?  While nobody was hurt by his actions and he had the best of intentions, his ethics fell short when he falsified the document. Decisions like this shape who we become while it desensitizes our conscience, blurs lines, and makes future unethical decisions much easier to make. My theory is this: making the wrong decision for the right reason is still the wrong decision!

Both of these readings spoke volumes to me, and reminded me of the lying, cheating, and deceit that was associated with some of the recipients of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). An example I would consider as TARP recipient fraud is Goldman Sachs, who received TARP funds only to use $2 billion (yes, billion!) to buy back company stock shares, resulting in an increase in the per-share price of their stock. At the time, Lloyd Blanldein, the CEO for Goldman Sachs, owned just under 2 million shares of his company’s stock. Additionally, after receiving TARP funds, Goldman Sachs after reported profits of $2.3 billion dollars, then paid out over $4.8 billion dollars in bonuses. Hmmm. Another example of TARP abuse can be found with Citigroup, where the bank had corporate losses in 2008 totaling over $27 billion dollars. The same year, Citigroup paid bonuses of over $5.3 billion dollars while receiving over $45 billion dollars in TARP funds. If the TARP funds equated to stock shares, the American taxpayers would own about one third of the corporation.

To aide in accounting for TARP fund misuses, Washington DC created a new department titled the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, aka “SIGTARP”. According to the SIGTARP website, they consider themselves to be “a sophisticated, white-collar law enforcement agency, was established by Congress in 2008 to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse linked to the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)” (SIGTARP, ND). One concern have is that the government used additional taxpayer dollars to create an agency to monitor and report on the misuse and abuse of taxpayer dollars that were given to banks, investment corporations, and automobile companies? Quarterly, SIGTARP releases a report to Congress on their findings related to the progress of TARP recipients paying back their loans, as well as an evaluation of the program as a whole. This is sort of a progress report.  The report from this past quarter, SIGTARP reported that while some TARP recipients are 1 to 2 quarters behind on their payments, 3% of the recipients are nearly 2 years behind on making any payments on their government loan.

How does this relate to lying, cheating, and deception? Currently, there are 103 TARP recipients with a total outstanding balance due of over $17 billion dollars to the US government (ProPublica, 2013). Seventeen billion taxpayer dollars that could be used for its intended purpose: to provide essential services for our
citizenry.




References

Bok, S. (2007). The noble lie. In W. L. Richter, & F. Burke, Combating corruption, encouraging ethics: a practical guide to management ethics (pp. 105-107). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

ProPublica. (2013). Bailout Tracker. Retrieved from Pro Publica: http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list/losses

SIGTARP. (ND). Welcome to SIGTARP. Retrieved from The Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program: http://www.sigtarp.gov/Pages/home.aspx

Graft and Corruption in Public Administration

“There’s an honest graft, and I’m an example of how it works. I might sum up the whole thing by sayin’: ‘I seen my opportunities and I took’em’”. – George Washington Plunkitt.

One of the subjects we discussed in class this week was the concept of graft.  What it is? Who does it? Why they do it? Does it still exist? Does it matter? I found the quote above to be an interesting take on what seems to be fairly commonplace in some governments. The study of graft quickly became of great intrigue to me, making me want to focus this week’s blog on the subject.

Graft is defined in the free dictionary (2014) as 1. Unscrupulous use of one's position to derive profit or
advantages, like extortion; 2. Money or an advantage gained or yielded by unscrupulous means; or 3. To gain by or practice unscrupulous use of one's position. (Unknown). Essentially, one who grafts is one who leverages their power or position in the quest to gain something.  Any gain can be as simple as financial gain, or as complex as political gain. Granted, both types of gain generally result in financial reward; while the first is immediate, the latter results in future financial reward based on a rise in power. While I differentiate between graft and corruption in the title of my blog, I probably should not. Graft, pure and simple, is a form of corruption.

The people who graft are those who are in a position of power.  In the public sector, this could be a manager, department head, governing body head, state representative, senator, governor, vice president, or even president. What do each of these positions have in common?  They are leaders, and they have a level of position power afforded to them.  Granted, the position power of a manager is not nearly as great as that of a government body head, and I would assume that the graftability (I do not think this is even a word!) is not as abundant as a result.  Nevertheless, the ability to graft is still very much present.

Now that I have described who can graft, the question that needs to be answered is …why would they do it? The answer is simple: to get more power and more money! Besides the quest to make a better life for those in the constituency (cynicism intended!), these may be the two biggest motivators for most people with position power to graft. Power is seductive and power is addicting. Please do not misunderstand what I am trying to say here. I am not saying that any public servant who has position power as grafters. But there are just so many that do graft; and those who do are doing so in the quest for power, glory, and money.

OK. I have discussed who can graft.  I have discussed why a person with position power might graft. Does it still happen today? Yes, it does!  There are many examples in the news of bribery, coercion, and the heavy influence that those with power place on those with less or no power.  One example is in 2003, in Clark County, Nevada. Commissioners were taking bribes from strip club owners in exchange for the passing strip club friendly legislation.  The case was known as “Operation G-String”. What were the results of the investigation? “Four commissioners were convicted of conspiracy, wire fraud, and extortion.” (Trex, 2008). Graft is not only part of American politics, though.  In 2002, citizens of Turkey grew tired of their corrupt government, electing Recep Tayyip Erdogan,  a member of the “Islamist Justice and Development” (AK) Party, as their prime minister. In Turkish, AK translates to “white”, or “pure”.  Later, it was discovered that over 50 Turkish officials were orchestrating covert gold transfers to Iran, as well as taking bribes. Erdogan’s actions were swift and direct; he reassigned hundreds of Turkish police chiefs and fired the prosecutor who was leading the investigation. In addition, he put laws in place that allowed government to halt corruption investigations against the government.  (Economist, 2014). Graft is alive and thriving!

We have discussed the usual suspects in the arena of grafting; why people with position power would graft; and that grafting is still alive and well today.  Does it matter if public officials graft? You bet it matters.  Even if the grafting is benefiting both them and their agency, it is a dirty, unethical act.  As a taxpayer, how could we trust our representation if they are concerned first about themselves, and then about their citizenry?  In addition, if a public official is participating in graft, there it is more than likely an opportunity that is lost, as the grafting official is taking bribes while foregoing on what could be considered a better option …for less money.

Do you know a public official who has participated in graft?

References

Economist, T. (2014, January 4). Turkish Politics: No longer a shining example. Retrieved from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21592671-turkeys-government-disappoints-because-allegations-sleaze-and-its-increasingly-authoritarian

Riordan, W. (2007). Honest graft and dishonest graft. In W. L. Richter, & F. Burke, Combating corruption, encouraging ethics: a practical guide to management ethics (pp. 89-90). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Trex, E. (2008, December 11). 4 More Examples of American Political Corruption. Retrieved from Mental Floss: http://mentalfloss.com/article/20340/4-more-examples-american-political-corruption

Unknown, O. (2014). The free dictionary: Graft. Retrieved from The free dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/graft

Comments on Starks' Twenty-first century challenges: global dimensions/changing boundaries

This week, I studied Twenty-first century challenges: global dimensions/changing boundaries by Glenn L. Sparks (2007). Sparks discusses the changes that are occurring in the public sector workplace as a result of both government downsizing and the onset of mass retirements as baby boomers reach retirement age.

What does this mean to you, the government agency? While it seems that employee retirement would be the perfect complement to addressing government downsizing, it can also leave you faced with a dramatically changed work environment. Not only are you forced to do more tasks with less resources, but the resources you do have will possess a completely different skillset than the resources you were used to having. There is less experience and less institutional knowledge. Moreover, the generation of workers you now have (which are the Generation X and Millennials) have completely different motivators that must be understood in order to achieve the highest level of productivity. In Working with Five Generations in the Workplace, Rawn Shah explains that by 2015, the “the people born between 1977 and 1997—will account for nearly half the employees in the world” (Shaw, 2011).

In Starks’ report (2007), he discusses his approach to the changing work environment, and offers an “eight point dynamic strategy to cope with dramatically changing work environments” (p. 47).  The eight points offered include 1. Act like a business; 2. Manage the whole person; 3. Empower employees; 4. Expect more out of employees; 5. Avoid politics; 6. Become educated; 7. Remember for whom you work; and 8. Be a manager and a leader. Let me speak on each of these points.

Act like a business. Starks discusses that public-sector agencies must employ private-sector business practices. His thought process behind this is that private sector companies compete for the same government

funds that public sector agencies. Public sector agencies must create a competitive advantage so they can secure funds. Starks even comments that “if sales are not generated to meet it budgetary needs, the agency must reduce manpower or make financial reductions”. While I believe that government agencies can employ some aspects of private business practices, there are very distinct differences existing between private and public sectors; namely the profit motive that exists. In spite of government having no profit motive, their services are generally competitive in cost to those existing in private business, if the government entity is constructed and managed in an efficient manner.

Manage the whole person!

Manage the whole person. Starks discusses that today’s workforce is very diverse. Different cultures, interests, and generations. As I had mentioned earlier, by 2015, generation X and generation millennial will make up over half of the global workforce. These generations will have a completely different set of needs, desires, interests, and motivators than any of the generations before them.  The key to maximizing
productivity is to create a workplace that speaks to the employee’s motivations. A manager in this brave, new world will have to be open to change.  I know this is a hard concept for the more “experienced” worker (present company included) to accept, but it if you want to maximize productivity (employee happiness, output), this needs to be a serious consideration.

Empower employees. Starks (2007) discusses that “effective administrators allow their employees to make decisions and have input into major decisions” (p. 50). I am a wholehearted supporter of this concept.  As I had wrote in my previous paragraph, managers must be open to change in order maximize productivity in today’s organizations. In my opinion, it would greatly benefit a workplace to empower employees to have input on how work gets done. Soliciting (and employing) staff input fosters a sense of ownership in the results.

Expect more out of employees. Starks discusses that as work forces get smaller and smaller, people must work more efficiently. My reaction when I read this was “of course people must work more efficiently”!  Managers have to find ways to get work done with less people, less money, and perhaps less time, while following a more and more set of strict statutory requirements.  In order to do this, I would employ the art of empowering employees to help optimize processes, review what is required by statute, and compare that against what you are currently doing.  Often much of what we do is based on past practices, but not necessarily what is required by statute. This can bring about some difficult discussions and tough discussions.

Avoid politics. This is a must.  Though citizens may blur the distinction between public entities and politics,
there is a difference. Friedrich (2007) discusses that there are two distinct functions of public service: policy making, via politics; and policy execution, executed through administration (p. 35). Starks’ point he was trying to make deals more with the internal politics that exist in the workplace, the creation of “yes” people, and the damage it can cause. Employees use politics in hopes of impressing upper management, and while not intentional, often causes great tension in the workplace.

Become educated. Starks (2007) discusses that it is not only important to take advantage of training opportunities that are offered at work, but also to pursue training from outside sources (p. 51). Training is important to me, and I am in complete agreement with Starks’ points he makes here.  Internal training opportunities are important as they add a consistency in how work is completed, and are a great means of training staff in tasks that are statutorily required. Outside training offer employees an opportunity to experience other perspectives. A new twist, so to speak. Hopefully, they bring new ideas back with them that will improve the current processes.

Remember for whom you work. In my opinion, this is one of the most important points that Starks is trying to make.  As public servants, it is our obligation to carry out the laws and statutes, and our goal should be to deliver the most efficient, professional service possible with the funds the taxpayers provide.

Be a manager and a leader. Lastly, leaders must be innovative and set clear direction for their organizations.  Starks (2007) mentions that leaders must “access the organization and make the most of what is available” (p. 52). While Starks discusses that a leader needs to involve employees in the decision making for the office, ultimately the manager is accountable for achieving results. It is important to create a balance of providing staff with training that will enhance operations of the office, understanding employee need, and fulfilling those needs in a way that fulfills the mission of the agency.

Thank you for reading. More later!

References

Friedrich, C. J. (2007). Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. In W. L. Richter, & F. Burke, Combating corruption, encouraging ethics: a practical guide to management ethics (pp. 35-37). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Shaw, R. (2011, April 20). Working with five generations in the workplace. Retrieved from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rawnshah/2011/04/20/working-with-five-generations-in-the-workplace/

Starks, G. L. (2007). Twenty-first century challenges: global dimensions/changing boundaries. In W. L. Richter, & F. Burke, Combating corruption, encouraging ethics: a practical guide to management ethics (pp. 50-52). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.