Patricia W. Ingraham

Integrative Leadership in the Public Sector A Model of Performance-Information Use

This article proposes a new model for understanding leadership in the public sector. The integrative approach to leadership focuses on how leaders choose, promote, institutionalize, and use public management systems, and reform those in time. Using data from a 50-state survey, this article explores the role of integrative leadership in one of the most popular reforms of government in recent years, managing for results. The findings suggest that leadership does indeed matter to the use of performance information in decision making and offer insights into how and when leadership matters.

Of Pigs in Pokes and Policy Diffusion: Another Look at Pay-for-Performance

What is the rationale for the adoption, diffusion, and implementation ofpay-for-performance programs in the public sector? Patricia Ingraham questions the basisfor the common view that private sector experience with pay-for-performance has been successful. She explores the additionalproblems posed by public management and compensation systems. An examination of implementation ofpay-for-performance in the United States and in other OECD nations demonstrates gaps between expectations and realities in public settings. Despite obvious problems, the effort continues to appeal to both elected officials and many public managers. More careful attention to design, resource commitment, and evaluation in public organizations is recommended. During the past 30 years, performance appraisal and pay-for-performance systems have become widespread in the United States. Over 90 percent of private sector firms operate with some form of pay-for-performance (Wyatt Company, 1989). The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 created pay-for-performance systems for members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) and for midlevel managers in the federal government. The Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 established a joint labor-management committee to investigate the possibility of extending the systems government-wide. Over 20 states currently have pay-for-performance systems on the books, and several more are considering adoption in the near future (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1990). Many counties and cities also have such systems, although data are limited on these schemes (Ammons and Rodriguez, 1986). The diffusion has also been cross-national; 13 member nations of the international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) now have some form of pay-forperformance (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1992).1

Cross Pressures of Accountability: Initiative, Command, and Failure in the Ron Brown Plane Crash

Contemporary political rhetoric and management reforms have highlighted accountability issues for government. A troubling feature associated with these management reforms is a gap between the expectations of management reform and the reality of the American culture of accountability. This culture gap is likely to be particularly evident in organizations that are structured around principles of command and control, such as the military. This article explores the cross pressures individuals face when they are urged to demonstrate initiative and obedience to command while operating within a web of accountability relationships that represent several different behavioral standards against which their performance can be judged. To conduct this research, the authors interviewed members of the Accident Investigation Board appointed by Major General Ryan, Commander of the United States Air Force Europe (USAFE), to investigate the April 1996 crash in Croatia of the military transport plane carrying United States Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown and his party of distinguished visitors. These personal interviews were supplemented with the official reports of the Accident Investigation Board and transcripts of testimony before the Board. Based on these data, we analyze the accountability dynamics involving the various military officials associated with the “mishap flight.” We find that while institutional rhetoric and managerial conditions encouraged entrepreneurial behavior and initiative, the administrative reality still emphasized a risk-averse, rules-oriented approach to accountability when things went wrong.

Human Resource Practices in State Government: Findings from a National Survey

What are states doing with respect to human resource practices to improve government operations? Using data collected by the Government Performance Project, this article identifies emerging trends and innovations in state personnel systems. Specifically, it provides a national comparison in the areas of personnel authority, workforce planning, selection, classification, and performance management. Results show that many states are delegating authority for personnel functions to agencies and managers, shifting their human resource missions to being more proactive and collaborative with agencies, and adopting performance management systems that integrate organizational and individual goals. In short, many states are investing considerable resources to modernize their human resource management systems.

Shaping Administrative Reform and Governance: An Examination of the Political Nexus Triads in Three Asian Countries

When addressing administrative reform, many scholars have referred to the fact that governments confront multiple internal challenges such as fiscal stress, distrust of bureaucracy, and higher demands for public services (Peters and Savoie 1995). Externally, governments become more sensitive to global issues and tend to be more influenced by international environments (Garcia-Zamor and Khator 1994). Faced with internal and external challenges, governments seek new paradigms for governance (Ingraham and Romzek 1994) and often initiate administrative reform (AR) aimed at enhancing governmental performance and improving the administrative system through technological advances, managerial improvements, administrative innovations and continued enhancement of administrative capabilities (Caiden 1991). Administrative reform and its diffusion among Western countries are well documented in the literature (Campbell and Peters 1988; Savoie 1994; Halligan 1996; Peters and Savoie 1995). However, studies are skewed toward Western countries and little attention has been paid to Asia. Even less attention has been paid to comparative studies on Asian administrative reform, even though many Asian countries have developed their own AR trajectories to improve public efficiency and productivity (Burns 1994; Zhang, De Guzman, and Reforma 1992). As many students of comparative public administration (CPA) understand, it is always a challenging task, both methodologically and theoretically, to examine a group of different countries (Aberbach and Rockman 1987; Heady 1996a; 1996b; Peters 1988; Peters 1996). It is an even more challenging and controversial task to develop a single comparative framework from which we can examine different countries. This article attempts to fill a gap in the literature by examining Asian AR from a comparative perspective. First, we propose an exploratory theoretical framework, a Political Nexus Triad (PNT). PNT is an extended model, which adds civil society as the third dimension to the traditional politics-administration model. We suggest the PNT and its dynamic trajectory as a building block of the comparative study of Asian administrative reform. This is similar to the power interaction models in which Peters (1988) addresses the power interactions between politicians and bureaucrats.1 Second, we examine the conventional patterns of PNT for three Asian countries: China, Japan, and Korea. Third, we survey AR of the three countries, focusing on actors, contents and potential impacts to the new PNT. Finally, we discuss conclusions and comparisons

Decentralization of Human Resource Management: Driving Forces and Implications

In the past two decades, decentralization ofh uman resources management has been one ofthe themes of administrative reform. While a lot of research has been conducted at the federal level, less of it has specifically targeted state government This article uses data from the 1998 survey of state governments to fill in this gap by identifying the driving forces and implications of human resources management decentralization in thestates.

Models of Public Management: Are They Useful to Federal Managers in the 1980s?

Definition of proper relationships between the career bureaucracy and political leadership is one of the enduring problems of public administration. Several models which seek to describe these relationships have emerged in literature and debate, but they have seldom been tested empirically. It is clear, however, that serious differences which distinguish various models can be evaluated. Because these conflicting role prescriptions have important implications for both career managers and political executives, such empirical tests are needed. Two recent developments highlighted and altered the nature of career-political relationships in the United States national government. The first was the introduction in 1978 of the Senior Executive Service (SES); the second was the election and re-election of Ronald Reagan. In this analysis, the major models which are present in public administration literature are described and tested, using survey and personal interview data, against current realities of public management in the federal service.

Leadership in the Public Sector Models and Assumptions for Leadership Development in the Federal Government

To fill the need for leaders and change agents throughout all levels of federal agencies, public sector human resource managers are now called on to develop innovative leadership development programs. Developing leaders for the 21st century requires attention to workforce trends as well as flexibility and creativity. Federal government leadership development programs need to address special leadership concerns of public agency managers, including creative thinking, collaboration, cross-organizational team building, and leading for results. This research provides overviews of federal leadership development programs and includes average and exemplary models. Lessons learned from this research offer a new set of leadership development assumptions for the public sector. Data were gathered from document analysis, preliminary network interviews, and in-depth personal interviews with program designers and participants.

Politics and Merit: Can They Meet in a Public Service Model?

This analysis examines existing models of career bureaucrat and political appointee relationships and asks: to what extent is the broader purpose of public service for both politicals and careerists considered? Because most current models focus on career responsibilities, but exclude the special public responsibilities of political managers, a new “Public Service Model” is proposed. The new-model proposes a joint political-career commitment to serving the public interest and a heightened recognition of the value of both sets of public executives. Both have a critical role to play in democratic policy processes; joint action and cooperation are essential to effective governance.

Pay for Performance in the States

This research examines pay performance systems in the American states to determine the nature of policy diffusion and implementation patterns. Given the well-documented difficulties with pay for performance in the federal government and, increasingly, in the private sector, the research asks, Why do state governments continue to adopt the programs? The authors survey of those states with current pay for performance legislation or provisions finds that not all states with programs on the books have operational systems, nor do those with operational programs fund them consistently. A majority of personnel directors finds the systems to be somewhat effective, or as in improving manager-employee communication and overall direction of employees, but implementation problems occurred in nearly every state in the survey. Further, there was a significant gap between initial expectations for pay for performance and the reality of the programs. The author suggests that for future policy expansion and diffusion a set of decision criteria more closely linking policy expectations with personnel systems capability and support is necessary.