Essay Sample on Public Executives: Accountability & Commitment to Results

Accountability and commitment to focus on results has seen more people try to focus on performance concerns and management to improve productivity. As such, there is a higher call for managers and those in power to be more accountable and responsive to make greater use of public resources. As the test of public expenditure is for the expense of the most beneficial factor of spending, public spending accompanies an accurate description of how the public executives have expended public resources (Julnes & Holzer, 2001). The paper considers the practicality of the implementation of performance measurement and management, by detailing the functionality of government parastatals for managing for results and the new performance doctrine reforms. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) has also been duly detailed to present a clear discussion that showcases the author's standing concerning the applicability of GPRA and its impact on performance reporting and review.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Managing for Results vs. Managerial Flexibility

Most organizations in the public domain advocate focusing on organizational performance. The results of the department are more important than the means the organization utilizes to achieve the said results. The organization's management is rigid to alter the organizational structure to support the intention of the execution of activities and allocation of resources. Yet, the same management adheres to standards that do not align with effective management practices.

Managing for results is focused on discrete performance measures, and these aspects are to be actualized irrespective of the managerial disposition concerning institutional bureaucracy (Sanger, 2012). Moreover, administrative flexibility is the antidote to organizational rigidity. Yet, most public staff do not practice streamlined coordination and execution of work activities to attain maximum efficiency and conduct of operations. Changes to address managing for results were detailed as potential propositions for solutions for the concerns of the issues identified by the execution hypothesis.

Resources appropriation and utility of execution strategies oversee the results arrangements of the public institutions (Moynihan, 2004). This hypothesis contends that why and how chosen authorities embrace results to put together change are based on their comprehension of the relative expenses and advantages principally representative of the change. Julnes & Holzer (2001) have stated that receiving execution data frameworks is well known, has no natural resistance, and requires little work or loss of intensity to the chosen authorities.

Supervisors at the office level respond by utilizing the change where their position permits, regularly in manners not anticipated by the change tenet. Office authority recognizes how such changes might be used by management to increase the value of the association, given the association's specific situation and the pioneer's motivation. The case proof proposes that representative activity is not conflicting with considerable results that give genuine open administration benefits.

A few urban communities are notable for overseeing the execution of management for results. Further, if people see the exhibition estimation framework in general, the reports do not show all the measurements perceived as the most significant. These measures do not show up in the best estimation of urban communities. Along these lines, management analysts do not consider particular public institutions while assessing which department is best on resource utilization. As a result, a few urban communities with great estimation frameworks because they are unable to discover desired performance levels.

Minimal usage of Performance Management Reforms

Though management for results and managerial flexibility has resounding advantages to organizations and the public, few institutions have put to practice the tenets of these philosophies. Governments adhere to these doctrines on paper, but the practical situation on the applicability of the measures remains aloof. Such is the case in most government institutions, and this action depicts partial adherence to the tenets of proper public administration and governance of public resources. The institutions consider the compliance of measures on the pretext that the doctrines are instigated within corporate philosophies and undertakings. Yet, little is done by the management to actualize the sufficient criteria necessary to manage performance and ensure flexible work structures, accessibility of resources, and transfer of information in real-time for better managerial decisions about the expense of public funds.

Personal Stand

The above discussion is coincidental to proper public management. Governments indeed have a twisted orientation to the practice of managing for results and managerial flexibility. Managers plan performance estimation to deliver objective, pertinent data on the program or authoritative execution that they can utilize it to fortify the administration. Besides, educational dynamics and adherence to corporate goals accomplish results to improve in general performance and well as increase responsibility and accountability.

In other words, execution estimation will, in general, affect the conduct of corporate executives and estimates on their dispense of resources. Execution estimation will, in general, spotlight consideration on what is what the managers estimate. Also, on execution itself and spurring individuals and associations to work to improve performance, managers, in any event, consider those measurements under observation.

Political Advocation of NPM Doctrine Reforms

Be that as it may, various powers in the public domain revitalize the execution of the new performance measures (Moynihan, 2013). Reacting to some extent to these outer weights and persuaded to some extent by their own basic to deliver financially savvy administrations, politicians will start utilizing several ways to deal with and reinforce the administration limit of their associations. Most remarkably, these include necessary arrangements of public resources and additional development of essential administration formulations.

The politicians also might want quality improvement programs and reengineering forms. These and different outcomes situated administration instruments required robustly Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations centered execution estimation frameworks on giving gauge information and assessing viability (Poister, 2008). Subsequently, most state organizations have been working, at a surface level, at any rate, to create full-scale execution measures, and they might be increasingly characterizing point by point automatic execution markers inside their fundamental structures later on.

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

This Act is the beginning stage and critical part of the contemporary government execution framework. The sturdiness of this structure vouches for the intelligence of implanting it in resolution. It was not cleared aside with another presidential organization; as such, a large number of officials drive the performance evaluation metrics. Performance estimation alludes to the way toward characterizing, watching, and utilizing resources for the greater good of the public. As is regularly the situation in public administration, there is no regular use of key terms here. Albeit some utilization of the term performance management alludes to characterizing and gathering information on performance and save the term execution observing to allude to the use of the information in the board and dynamic frameworks within government institutions.

Tenets of GPRA

Moynihan (2006) presented the major principles of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 to include management, actions, and results. Management is the Act of overseeing the allocation and utilization of resources in the public domain. Accompanied by practical and actionable results categorizations, the public sphere witnesses greater accountability and transparency.

Strategic planning and prioritization of goals mark the highlight towards greater efficiency of public resources. Moynihan (2013) presents the first pillar of GPRA to also advocates for program reviews. The state management cancels the ineffective programs and government spending in favor of more convenient and beneficial state activities that benefit a more significant segment of the population.

Also, collaboration and communication go along with effective performance management and managerial flexibility. Continuous learning and improvement also do good to ensure that desired results, goals, and objectives are attainable. Through collaboration, communication, and learning, then performance improvement can be witnessed. The same applies to be valid for accountability and transparency, as the state department's record greater performance levels with the adherence to GPRA considerations.

GPRA's Information Content

Management plans performance estimation reviews to deliver objective, pertinent data on the program or authoritative execution that it can utilize to fortify administration performance levels and implementation of activities. Besides, the dynamic accomplishment of results and improvisation of work structures lead to greater efficiency and more significant implementation of results (Moynihan, 2013). In other words, execution estimation will, in general, affect the conduct and choices of public servants.

Performance reviews will, in general, spotlight the consideration of what is being estimated by the performance review. Moreover, on execution itself, the performance review will as well spur individuals and associations to work to improve performance, at any rate, on those measurements that are under observation. Furthermore, it is typically true that it produces dated information. It is due to such concerns that the new performance measures intervention was spearheaded by legislatures to cab the negative impacts of GPRA.

There is too much leeway in the way GPRA is structured, and public executives always find loopholes to manipulate the system to their advantage. Untimely information is highly discouraged as the content of data has no impact on decision making at the present problem scenario (Moynihan, 2013). No matter the quality of the presentation and findings or recommendations from the metrics of GPRA, if such information is not able to be accessible during the decision-making stage, then such data is irrelevant when it eventually reaches the concerned officials.

Weaknesses of GPRA

The greatest weakness of GPRA is the untimely nature of the propositions and the quality of performance reviews. Besides, GPRA is highly subjective and biased upon the proponents as the executors are also the ones concerned with the performance review structure. Such being the case, researcher bias occurs, and in this case, it is the reviewers' bias to favor their performance as they are in control of their performance metrics. Besides, the GPRA focuses more on the compliance aspect than the utility of the performance review concerns to improve product and service delivery to the end-user of government products and services.

Recommendations

Government officials should lead an evaluation of the association's performance review board to create and execute performance measures. This may uncover the degree of information in the association about the convenience of execution estimation data, the degree of help for execution estimation, and the state of the association as it identifies with its culture, assets, and ability.