Public Communication Essay

Unlike many of the other writing assignments d atomic number 53 hence far, this paper will be providing brief synopses for several(prenominal)(prenominal) essays on issues twisting with the study of macrocosm centering. Although it might be possible to state that the reports and theories presented in these texts atomic number 18 each true or false, it will be the remainder of this writing to take the simple approach and focus on the thoughts that argon presented atomic number 18 comfort relevant in modern practice of human beings room.However, it is first gear important to localise place that even today in that location is no aggregated view for weighing or measuring the achievement of domain managers. This is because in part due to the various vogues in which the agencies manage themselves, for example whether or non they chose to follow national surgical procedure review (NRP) response or a total quality management (TQM) method. Another problem is that often times today a management policy that has been set up and successfully tested for the clandestine field is either grafted to the, or imposed over the management policies of a unrestricted enterprise.The issue that this brings up is that, depending on the agency, that there is no clear idea on who the customers are, nor what output is that the popular agency is trying to appease. Meanwhile, the management theories that are being imposed on to them, are based on a quantifiable examination as to rather they are successful or not. Simply put, there is no easy or standard way for researchers of the field of universe administration to be able to clearly narrow between the successful management styles of matchless mankind administrator to another(prenominal).In fact, researching this problem is the genuinely thing that our first author is calling for in his essay. Graham T. Allison attempts with his article, Public and Private Management Are They Fundamentally akin in All Unimpor tant Respects? to both(prenominal) collective and tot the prevailing ideas on public management at the time (1979). In addition, he highlights several areas in which the academic thinkers were struggling with and arguing over.Allison point out everything from the similarities of How are Public and Private Management Alike? , to charting out the functions of general management, and to the current research being done to answer several questions that these topics have been brought up since Woodrow Wilson now endonized first article on the subject (1979,p 397) (1887). Allisons call for research in this field is still greatly needed and sought after today as we moorage from one management style to another, seemingly distinctive, in todays public agencies. unmatched example of the reason that this research is needed can be found in comparing the resent style sway to the NPR, from the more traditional management style outlines in Louis Brownlow, Charles E. Merriam, and Luther Gulick essay, Report of the professorships Committee on Administrative Management (1937). In their essay, they were operative under the assumption that the management side of public administration could be, and was, snap off from the semi policy-making decisions and policies that directs the public service sector.Under this assumption, they crusaded for more power and see over the public management process, on the behave of the executive branch. whatever of their ideas included allowing the president to hire powerless, sector concentrated, secretaries that would assist the president with run into necessary education from the public bureaus under their area of concern and to come out back the decisions that the president makes back to the personneled agencies.These authors go on notwithstanding to state that all major decisions on the functions of personnel, fiscal, organizational, and planning management should be given directly to the sole control of the president (1937, p 94). The first problem is that fiscal management go under the authority of the congressional branch of disposal. In addition, with the shifting towards NPR, and other acts of congress, we see congress fetching a greater role in the personnel management of public administration.The biggest give backacy in this article is the assumption, that the management of public departments is narrated from the regime and decisions that are made in Washington. In fact, everything about the various departments falls under the control of the very people who the authors are trying to separate them from. Now with a slight deviation from the previous topics on public management, let us take a look at the burn in public administration that involves the movement of bringing traditionally public sector jobs into the private sector. The Privatization Movement, once simply a group of scholarly outsiders, has come of age (1987, p 469). Our look into privatization will be by the work done by, Ronald C. M oe and his essay, Exploring the Limits of Privatization (1987).Moes essay explores several cases like McCulloch v. Maryland, Tennessee valley Authority (TVA), and the entities like Freddie Mac that fall under the Federal sign Bank Board, to point out the various issues that are winding with the privatization of public offices. While the issues range rom the organizational and budgeting management, to the legal and authority problems that these privatized companies face, Ronald Moe hones in on the latter two issues as to the reasons why privatization will not work with the public sector. The government of the United States has the right, as a milkweed butterfly power, to impose taxes, charmings, and laws on its citizens. The issue that Moe in concern with is does this, and should this autonomousty be passed along to a governmental contracted company that does not unavoidably fall directly under the direct control of the government?Moe listed several attributes that are inheren t to a sovereign government to help his take over these, summarized attributes are, sovereign possesses the legitimate right to use coercion to enforce its will, tho a sovereign may legitimately go to war with another sovereign, sovereigns can do no wrong, a sovereign is indivisible. A sovereign cannot assign its attributes to a private party and remain a sovereign, a sovereign has the right to set forth rules for the protection and transfer of property, and at long last a sovereign can disavow but not go bankrupt with its debts. (1987, pp 473 474).The turn of the century fall of Freddie Mac and other banks and the sequent bail-out of these privatized firms would be an example of a major problem with the concept of privatization of a public sector firm. Are these banks private property and therefore fall under the state and federal rules for bankruptcy? or are do they belong to the public sector and fall under the attribute that protects the government from going bankrupt? Moe correctly claims that by not specifying where this very fine line fells leads to the kinds of corruption and miss-appropriation of public stock certificates that we saw with the resent bump of the housing market.Finally, he calls for a review to be done on identifying the differences between the private sector and the public sector firms before undertake our government duties to a private interest. However, this involves assigning some sort of regard as to the how the public service works, which is the topic of the next article. In his essay, Creating Public honor Strategic Management in Government Mark H. Moore discusses the problems in nailing floor a single method of measuring the output of public managers and their agencies (1995).One of these problems is as simple as the fact that public agencies are involved in not one public program, but instead they are usually involved in several different programs that may or may not intersect with one another. This being the case, t han why not just take the average? Because these programs, like the money that is used to fund them, are designed and supplied by not the managers themselves, like you would see in a private venture, but rather, these things are handed to them by the political process and the managers are there simply to see that the job gets done.In the private sector, one can use the financial success of a firm to determine if the manager for that firm is successful or not. For example, if their product has value to it than the customer will buy it and the company will pose a profit (1995, p 549). However, since the customers of many of the public agency are either compelled to use, and/or they do not pay for the service at the time of use, than this compositors case of assessment is not a valid way to judge the value of the public management styles, nor are they very outcomeual for analyzing the programs themselves.According to Moore, often what is done is that some type of cost-benefit analy ses is done either before and/or after the program is started and this information is then compared to a similar service in the private sector to determine the military capability of the management style. The two problems with this approach is that, first it only show the effect that the program that the political leadership has implemented and not that of the management itself, and consequence that comparing an often vague value system to a very finite one is not easy task.An analogy of this problem would be in using data from a 30 meter figure of speech and then merging the information with the visual effect of a 1 meter image. One might be able to get the information into the smaller image, but so much of the data is skewed and disoriented that it becomes worthless for any kind of analyses. The same thing happens with the data from this type of public sector analyses. You do not just get the effect of just the manager on the project you also get the public officials that dra ft the project, the reaction by the public to the project, and the result of the project into one aggregated value set.This set of values is simply too weaken to be useful as a measurement against the values from the private sector. Instead, Moore suggests that research in a cost-effectiveness approach may be a solution to this problem (1995, p 553). All of these essays end up with the same major issue concerning measuring the successful public management style, from one that is not successful. In one form or another both Moore and Moe have called for research in driveing some standard in analyzing the public sector.In any analysis standard, the effects that politics has in its creation cannot be ignored. If as Woodrow Wilson claim is true, and the goal of these public administrators is to find the most cost-effective and the most efficient method to implement the political oriented policies then why not come up with a measurement on the efficiency and cost-effectiveness to be use d for passing archetype on them?