Discussion Board

Name:

Tutor:

Course:

Date:

Discussion Board

Public service professionals assume a critical role as conduits for change through optimization of performance and productivity across public entities. Public professionals are driven by the need to enhance administrative efficiency through control and management of government resources and functions. The administrative efficiency of public institutions increases with regard to the level of specialization of specific tasks amongst a group of professionals. Such demands the hierarchy is developed to ensure that responsibility and accountability are achieved in line with the respective roles of the administrative employees.

Literature suggests and emphasizes on the importance of specialization as a basis for determining the levels of administrative efficiency of a specific public institutions or offices. Such usually denotes an increase in specialization resulting in an increase in efficiency levels. Specialization may take a number of forms such as place and function, which plays a role in determining the efficiency levels of an administrative function within a public institution (Williams 647). Public service practitioners assume different roles, which are determined by the degree of specialization within a specific role or function in public office (Williams 426). Administrative efficiency is optimized by increasing the levels of specialization of a function amongst a group and in a manner, which contributes to enhanced institution or organizational efficiency.

Additionally, the unity of command provides a basis for determination of administrative efficiency and specialization levels within a public organization. Structuring an institution into a hierarchy plays an important role in enhancing the levels of administrative efficiency as it determines the levels of authority, accountability, and determination to preserve the status quo by the employees. The role within hierarchy, determines the determination and level of involvement of an employee in amelioration of social problems. Public service administrators are expected to remain responsive to any political and ideological views expressed by elected officials on different social challenges experienced by communities and subsequently delivering sound analyses on available alternatives to social problems (Wilson 485).

The commitment of public service administrators is not entirely reliant on the position within government, circumstance, and level of government. The overarching goals such as remaining steadfast towards critical and conscious action and pursuit of realistic goals ensuring thoughtful and reflective assessment of actions taken with an aim of learning from experience is essential. In addition, public service administrators are expected to exercise transcendent commitment such that they can contribute towards the involvement of citizens in direct governance (Shafritz & Hyde 48). Essentially the span of control as denoted by hierarchy plays an important role in determining the role of public service administrators as implementers, assistants, and controllers in the achievement of set out goals and objectives. A restricted span of control results in excessive red tape, especially in public institutions, which are denoted by complex interrelations between members (Simon 53).

Literature suggests organization by process, purpose, place, and clientele. Administrative efficiency is driven by the need to enhance efficiency through grouping of employees by process, purpose, place, and clientele. However, such a principle has been decried as inconsistent with internal needs of public institutions. In addition, it is assumed that circumstances, such as the role of public service administrators, may influence their ability to respond to specific needs raised by clients or citizens (Kettl 29). Furthermore, the efficiency in responding to the needs of the public is an overarching factor that should be taken into consideration in the assessment of efficiency of public institutions.

Works Cited

Denhardt, Janet V, and Robert B. Denhardt. The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe, 2007. Print.

Fry, B R, and L G. Nigro. Five Great Issues in the Profession of Public Administration. Public Administration and Public Policy. 65 (1998): 1163-1221. Print.

Kettl, F. Donald. .Public Administration at the Millennium: the state of the field. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 10, no. 1(2000): pp.7-34.

Simon, A. Herbert. The proverbs of administration. Public Administration Review, vol. 6, no. 1(1946): pp.53.

Shafritz, Jay M, and Albert C. Hyde. Classics of Public Administration. Oak Park, Ill: Moore Pub. Co, 1978. Print.

Stivers, Camilla. Bureau Men, Settlement Women: Constructing Public Administration in the Progressive Era. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2000. Print.

Wamsley, L. Gary, Goodshell, Charles T., Rohr, John A., Stivers, M. Camilla, White, F. Orion and Wolf, F. James. Public administration and the governance process: shifting the political dialogue.

Wilson, Woodrow. The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly vol. 56, no. 4 (1941): pp.481-506.

Williams, W. Daniel. Measuring Government in the Early Twentieth Century. Public Administration Review, vol. 63, no.6 (2003): 643-659.

Williams, Daniel W. Reinventing the Proverbs of Government. Public Administration Review vol.60, no.6 (2000.):p. 522–34.