For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION THEORY.
  Term Paper ID:24689 		Get This Paper Free! or
Essay Subject:
Describes & compares organizational theories of Michael Hammer & James Champy (re-engineering govt.) & Donald Osbourne & Ted Gaebler (re-inventing govt.).... More...
6 Pages / 1350 Words
11 sources, 30 Citations, APA Format
$24.00

More Papers on This Topic


Paper Abstract:
Describes & compares organizational theories of Michael Hammer & James Champy (re-engineering govt.) & Donald Osbourne & Ted Gaebler (re-inventing govt.).

Paper Introduction:
CONTRASTING THE ASSUMPTIONS OF HAMMER AND CHAMPY AND OSBORNE AND GAEBLER WITH THE EARLY CONTRIBUTORS TO PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION This essay reviews and contrasts the positions of contemporary organizational theorists with the positions of earlier contributors to the field. The earlier contributors considered are Woodrow Wilson, Fredrick Taylor, Max Weber, and Mary Follett. The contemporary theorists include Michael Hammer and James Champy, who contributed the increasingly discredited concept of re-engineering, and Donald Osborne and Ted Gaebler, who contributed the highly worthwhile concept of reinventing government. The essence of re-engineering is the total overhaul of a corporation. It is not the sum total of individually scattered continuous improvements. It is revolutionary, not evolutionary,

Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.


31), undoubtedly is a valid approach in some situations; however,it typically is implemented through the unacceptable approach recommendedby Hammer and Champy (1993)-from the top down and for the wrong reason-theelimination of employees. Reinventing focused on adjusting the approaches publicmanagers could explore, such as public private partnerships, contracting-out, load sharing, privatization, vouchers, empowerment, volunteers, TQM,participatory management, and alternative service delivery mechanisms.None of these procedures were new, but many had not been applied in theUnited States for a long while, and never had governments consideredapplying them all at once as might be appropriate for the variousresponsibilities of government. Stewart, T. (1991). William A. Fad surfing in the boardroom:Reclaiming the courage to manage in the age of instant answers. Cleaning up afterreengineering. The differences between the earlier contributors and thecontemporary theorists among this latter group are primarily dictated bychanging environmental conditions and imperatives. contrasting the assumptions of hammer and champy and osborne and gaebler with the early contributors to public administration This essay reviews and contrasts the positions of contemporaryorganizational theorists with the positions of earlier contributors to thefield. W. (1946). Although strictly speakingReengineering the Corporation (Hammer & Champy, 1993) is not a part of thebody of public administration literature, it certainly qualifies asdreadful reading that leaves the reader little to show for the effort oncethat task is completed. 34). Efficiency was sought in each case. With government acting in a steering capacity, Osborne and Gaebler(1991) viewed the solutions to society's problems as collaborativepartnerships between governments and private sector entities. Political ScienceQuarterly, 2, 14-26. Osborne and Gaebler (1991) contended that government should rid itselfof many of its service delivery functions. In the contemporary period in whichOsborne and Gaebler developed the reinventing government concept, privateparties are able to do many things more efficiently than government. (1911). Geisler (1996) noted further that not onecorporation has managed to apply the re-engineering concept "in itstotality and in its pure form. It isimportant to note that finding out what government can do bestcharacterizes both approaches. The reinventing government concept was introduced by Osborne andGaebler (1991) at an opportune time, because increasing public performanceand productivity with less fiscal support was becoming a necessity in theearly-199 s. 2 ). Hammer blames managerial ineptitude. A. 74). Mostcontemporary managers understand Follett's statement. (1996, September-October). Governmentwas, thus, viewed as the instrument used by society to accomplish thesegoals. Caveat emptor: Customers vs. Osborne and Gaebler (1991) proposed a simple but unusually perceptiveand workable thesis to the effect that governments should "steer, not row"(p. Reason, 26(4 ), 72-73. (Translators and Eds.).Essays in sociology. The principles of scientific management. C.Scientific foundations of business administration. Fortune,132(7), 162. Asimilar fate met Fredrick Taylor's (1911) scientific management decadesearlier, when initial successes improving efficiency were followed bydifficulties in attaining continuing improvements. Hammer and Champy in the contemporary periodand Taylor in an earlier day approached the objective as if they were the"king of the hill" who could dictate outcomes. Baltimore: The Williams& Wilkins Co. Further, such a partnership will be successful only ifsome benefits accrue to all of the collaborators. AsOsborne and Gaebler (1991) viewed this process, governance involves a widespectrum of players, as opposed to being limited to public administrators,public employees, and politicians. Max Weber (1946) believed that he had developed the ideal form oforganization in bureaucracy. Niskanen, W. In the mid-192 s, Mary Follett (1926) observedthat "the shrewd common sense of many a business executive has shown himthat ... Re-engineering fails, however, because "starting over" forcescompanies to implement re-engineering only on a piecemeal approach. Bureaucracy, ofcourse, did not prove to be ideal for all time or for all circumstances,and reengineering did not even come close, and likely will die less than adecade old. A. citizens."Public Manager: The New Bureaucrat, 24(3), 11-14. Rather, the process must be collaborative and involve all members ofan organization. References Follett, M. (1887). That concept,however, does not really address the issue of which body-government or aprivate contractor-is ultimately responsible when some tragedy occurs thatis attributable to the actions of a public-private partnership. Johnston, V. Thus,where re-engineering is envisioned as grand "starting over," it actuallydevolves into a series of periodic reevaluation and redesign efforts thatundercuts the vision that what is required is obliteration and recreation.Geisler (1996) pointed out that the total "revamping of a corporation isinherently unfeasible; it is more practical to use a piecemeal approachthat transforms some but not all units and processes. As citizens become customers and as governments separate the functionsof policy-making and service delivery, several concerns arise. Business Horizons, 39(5), 71-79. Taylor, F. Weber, M. The antidote for reengineering: It maynot be too late to rebuild the "bank account of trust." Industry Week,245(8), 2 . New York:Harper Bros. London: Oxford University Press. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. Because almost all re-engineering initiative were implemented from the top down, however, re-engineering achieved only short-term gains, and by 1995 was regarded ratherwidely as one more failed managerial quick-fix fad (Geisler, 1996). New York: Harper Business. Osborne and Gaebler (1991) contend that governmentshould be responsible for outcomes, as opposed to inputs. 53). This issue turns ona contention that a government cannot shift its constitutionalresponsibilities (and liabilities) to a private party. Matiotti, J. Reinventing government: How theentrepreneurial spirit is transforming government. So managers becomedefensive and employees resist. The others adopted morereasoned approaches that both promised and delivered positive, lastingresults. P. Critics of theOsborne and Gaebler (1991) approach to reinventing government then contendthat, in effect, no party is really accountable under such a system. Reading, Massachusetts:Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. In Metcalf, H. The study of administration. Rather, the elimination of employees, according to Hammer andChampy (1993) was simply a outcome of the process of re-engineering. Hammer's concept of top down leadership isepitomized in this statement: "Another symptom of inadequate leadership isslapping people's wrists instead of breaking their legs" (Quoted inMatiotti, 1996, p. Re-engineering, or "starting over," according to Hammer and Champy(1993, p. (1996, 15 April). In Wilson'scase and in Wilson's time, government was able to do many things moreefficiently than were private parties. Reengineering the corporation: Amanifesto for business revolution. H., & Mills, C. The contemporary theorists includeMichael Hammer and James Champy, who contributed the increasinglydiscredited concept of re-engineering, and Donald Osborne and Ted Gaebler,who contributed the highly worthwhile concept of reinventing government. to demand an unquestioned obedience to orders not approved, notperhaps even understood, is bad business policy" (p. 73). The giving of orders. By contrast, Woodrow Wilson(1887) contended that government should be seeking new service deliveryopportunities. Osborne and Gaebler (1991) argued that government can be reinvented bymaking public administrators and public employees assume responsibility fortheir own performance serving their citizen-customers. (1995, Fall). Gerth, H. This inherent inability to commit theorganization to total redesign and transformation prevents the success" (p.74) of a re-engineering effort. Hammer, M., & Champy, J. Hammer apparentlydoes not. Hammer and Champy (1993) emphasized in Reengineering the Corporationthat the elimination of employees was not the primary objective of re-engineering. (1926). Johnston (1995) observed that, in response to tax limitations andcitizen demands for higher quality services for less money, governmentadministrators increasingly began to explore the market model foralternative service delivery mechanisms. While government is an instrument, governance is a process. Making such a statementstick in a court of law, however, is another question. Government, withinthis context, becomes customer-centered and market-oriented. The mostfundamental of these concerns is the accountability of the private sectorservice providers. The earlier contributors considered are Woodrow Wilson, FredrickTaylor, Max Weber, and Mary Follett. Strangely enough the same objective motivated Osborne andGaebler, on the one hand, and Wilson, on the other hand, in the developmentof their contentions. Government, in its steering capacity, becomes a catalystfor societal action. Similarly, Max Weber's (1946)writings on the benefits of a bureaucratic structure of organization alsoexpressed concern that the ideal form of organization-as he describedbureaucracy-is hampered by the people who inhabit it. Government,thus, becomes a co-producer of public output, as opposed to a simpleservice provider. Re-engineering as a practical concept,thus, is inherently flawed. All of the contemporary theorists and all of the earlier contributorsto organizational thought considered in this essay sought increasedorganizational efficiency. Frederick Taylor (1911) introduced the efficiency schema that gavebirth to modern industrial engineering. Osborne and Gaebler (1991) viewed governance as the process bysociety collectively solve its problems and meet its needs. Taylor blamedmanagerial resistance. R. Should aprison inmate die as a consequence of misconduct or poor training of acorrections officer, it is easy enough to state that the correctionsofficer or the prison contractor is responsible. (1994, August-September). Wilson W. This response became formalizedin the concept of "reinventing government," as articulated by Osborne andGaebler (1991). Deregulating the publicservice. (1995, 2 October). Niskanen (1994), Chairman of the Cato Institute, wrotethat: "My vision of purgatory is being forced to read the whole corpus ofpublic-administration literature" (p. Geisler (1996) observed that, as a concept, re-engineering is validbecause it calls for the reevaluation of business processes using ananalysis that questions both the need for the process and the design of theprocess. The essence of re-engineering is the total overhaul of a corporation.It is not the sum total of individually scattered continuous improvements.It is revolutionary, not evolutionary, and is linked to a guiding overallvision of the re-engineered corporation (Hammer & Champy, 1993). And firms that have adopted it and haveinstituted changes in some processes and value chains now find themselvesembedded in side effects and distortions in their structure, processes, andhuman resources" (p. Though his methods producedinitial successes with a tremendous rise in efficiency, he lamented thefact that only fatigue and human frailties stood in the way of additionalimprovements and more efficient operations. Ifany re-engineering process is to achieve long-term sustainable benefits foran organization, however, the process must not be implemented from the topdown. (1993). Geisler, E. Similarly, Hammer and Champy have held thatReengineering the Corporation is the first truly original management booksince Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations (Stewart, 1995).

If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:

Search for:

or

We can write a Custom Essay just for you.


Browse Essays by Subject