The management of government agencies rests largely on the ability of managers to buy and sell products or hire and fire people based on standards of efficiency and productivity, which creates a great deal of red tape. It’s difficult for the government to buy big-ticket items because they must follow detailed and cumbersome policy and then advertise for bids. Usually, the government is obligated to accept the lowest price offered, even if a bid comes from a less competent firm. Ultimately, the government ends up with a sub-par product sold by a mediocre firm. This can cause issues down the line when the product or service does not work as well and impacts the government’s clients negatively.
We need to aim to make bureaucracy perform better. Ironically, voters want the government to spend less while also providing more money to a variety of programs. This puts bureaucrats between a rock and a hard place. There are several problems or obstacles inherent in bureaucracy that must be overcome. A bureaucracy must be accountable and perform agreed-upon goals and objectives, but getting a large agency to do so is difficult. A bureaucracy needs to be equitable, treating everyone fairly based on clear rules publicized in advance. Bureaucracies must be aware of their responsiveness, reacting sensibly to any give situation or individual concern. Bureaucracies are constantly working on being more efficient, but balancing efficiency with accomplishing work can sometimes come head to head. Lastly bureaucracies must be fiscally honorable, using public funds strictly for public purposes that further the advancement of citizens’ lives. The issue with overcoming a lot of these obstacles is that bureaucracies are large institutions and structures that require several layers of approval before moving forward with any initiative. Red tape, while useful in ensuring checks and balances among institutions, poses blockages for bureaucracies to accomplish tasks at a reasonable rate. It almost feels like a lose-lose because if too little money is spent, this could hinder an agency from accomplishing its work at a maximum level. If too much is spent, this could be dangerous for the viability of the organization. Ultimately, the government should be slightly more concerned with productivity and task accomplishment than fiscal savings.
A. Broad Implications
Agencies and bureaucracies can easily be conceived as tremendous, overpowering and unreachable. The danger of bureaucratic officials acting beyond their legal capacity is very high. These inefficiencies referenced regarding time and money constraints are all to ensure freedom and responsiveness from these officials through the system of checks and balances. This inefficiency ensures money is being spent properly and procedures are being followed accurately. Unfortunately, because of this, most bureaucrats will be influenced by constraints more than goals out of fear of stepping out of bounds. Ultimately, it is a balance that must be met, achieved by all levels of the organization or agency, but especially ensured by chief executives.
B. What functions do operators, managers, and executives play in the bureaucracy?
Operators sit on the lowest rung of the chain of command, delivering those services clients seek from a specific agency or department. They are highly aware of their clients’ needs can provide valuable insight into how policies will impact clients upon implementation. The operators’ performance speaks volumes about the organization and its goals, so they can be viewed as a face of the organization.
Managers coordinate operators to achieve organization goals. Managers provide operates with the resources necessary to do their jobs well and in accordance with goals, policies, laws and rules. Managers act as the liaison between the operators and the executives and explain the executive’s big picture into tangible goals that operators can work toward.
The executives maintain their organization. The executive provides the insight and motivation to prove to internal and external stakeholders that the agency’s mission and is worthwhile. They are also responsible for translating the direction, mission, goals, objectives of the agency so that it aids the current political atmosphere and context. A successful executive will maintain and grow the agency’s constituency and support.
C. How can bureaucratic practices and structures be designed to make decisions, even tough ones, politically acceptable to the public?
Bureaucracy needs to make a significant change in focus—making government customer-friendly. People often complain about how difficult it is to navigate bureaucracy and work with the government. If the government officials performed their jobs as if they had to meet certain customer-service standards, the experience could be more enjoyable for everyone. Citizens are frankly scared and confused of bureaucracies because they are so overwhelming and opaque. By providing this customer service feel as well as working to be as transparent and clear as possible is a great way to instill trust in bureaucracies. This, in turn, will make it easier for governments to take risks and make tough decisions because their practices are politically favorable and citizens trust they will make the right decisions.
It has and always will be important that bureaucracies are excused from the pressures of elected positions. Bureaucracies should be truly free from political pressure and act autonomous of the three branches of government to ensure political motives do not infiltrate policy making and enforcement. Neutrality is key in this space and by maintaining this structure and truly ensuring that it does remain free of political motivation is a strong signal to employees and taxpaying citizens that bureaucracies have those citizens’ best interests at heart.
D. Is it possible to gain broad consensus on divisive issues?
It’s possible to gain broad consensus on divisive issues if bureaucracy. Cultivating strong iron triangles is a first step. In an iron triangle, Congress, interest groups and the bureaucracy work together to provide electoral support, legislative advice, and funding. If all three corners of the triangle are supportive of one another, it’s easier to pass legislation that has a broad consensus backing it. We need to generally get the government and all the facets of it on the same page. Additionally, maintaining expansive issue networks can elevate these iron triangles. Political active citizens with diverse issue areas and concerns are politically advantageous because the more issue networks that support a piece of legislation or agency’s platform, the more likely it is that it is politically favorable and will achieve broad consensus.
E. Should chief executives be held to a different standard than citizens?
Yes, chief executives should be held to a different, higher and more stringent standard than citizens. Chief executives have been hired and are paid to behave responsibly and set an example for others to follow. A chief executive understands they have an organization underneath them filled with other employees that look to her or him for guidance, advice, and exemplary behavior. The power a chief executive has, not only in the decisions they can make but the number of lives they can impact, is why they should be held to a higher standard than the average.
F. What is the role of choice in bureaucracy?
Choice gives civil servants a sense of self-actualization and purpose in their jobs. Instead of feeling like they are performing rote duties everyday with no greater purpose or calling can make it difficult for people to stay in these positions long. By providing them with choices in their capacity allows them to feel like they have skin in the game and that their opinions and decisions matter. Choice can encourage innovative thinking which ensures that bureaucracies are coming up with creative, forward thinking solutions