Value Our Government – VOTE!

On a recent trip to Europe, I was amazed at how many people asked us about our government.  Are we happy with the Administration?  President Obama seems to be doing a great job, wouldn’t we agree?  Despite the economic problems, America was still strong and bouncing back, right?

Overall, from cab drivers to people at the next table in cafes, the feeling was positive, upbeat and respectful for our United States government and the public face it projects to the world.  It was clear that no matter what we think about how things are going at home, people in these countries, upon learning we were Americans, were eager to share their thoughts on what a great country we live in.  Do we value our own democracy in the same way?

Coming home was something of a culture shock!  Turning on the news to cries of ‘throw the bums out’ (pick a party – any party!) made us realize that perhaps we do not show the same level of respect to our own elected officials and public servants.  While we certainly have a right to criticize and expect more, good or bad, these are the people we elected.  Polite debate has given way to muckraking and name-calling, but these folks did not just appear in office.  We put them there.

Worse perhaps is the indifference.  With primaries upon us, how many will take the time to vote?  And how many of those who did not exercise their rights to elect will complain about those who are elected and the decisions that they make?  This is the ultimate sign of respect for our democracy, taking the time to consider the options and cast a ballot for the people and ideas that resonate with each individual. 

As public servants in any realm, in government, nonprofits or education, we need to encourage everyone to learn about the people and the issues and get out and vote!  It is our duty as well as our right.  It is the reason we fight wars and build global relationships.  And it certainly is valued by those in other countries even if we do a poor job of respecting it here at home!

By Yvonne J. Kochanowski, DPA, MBA, yvonne.kochanowski@capella.edu

On Public Service and Trust: Aiming the Cannons

I hear from my DPA and MPA learners the following lament:  There seems to be a real lack of trust from the public for public servants these days.  Whether it is criticizing the DMV office workers who are off on furlough days or complaining about how much government is spending on services they deem to be pitiful, the public (the residents we serve) seem to hold public administrators in low regard.  Is the public aiming its’ cannons of criticism in the right direction?

Note that in the examples above, I specifically called out a couple of areas where the civil service worker does not have control over the outcome that has disturbed the member of the public.  The worker in the DMV office is told when to take furlough days to help reduce a state deficit; the worker in a government building is also probably not the one who passed the jurisdiction’s budget.  Those same workers, though, are the ones that the public complains about!

When I explain that I teach public administration, I am often harangued with comments that I should teach public administrators to operate more like businesses.  If government was run like a business, people will say, it would be much more efficient.  Government and its workers are irresponsible in terms of spending and inefficiencies that are rampant throughout all jurisdictions.

Those of us who work every day in this field understand why this cannot and never will be true.  There are some inefficiencies in our processes and programs, but so many of these have been forced into oblivion in the many recent years of reduced expenditures and scarce resources.  Government is the provider of last resort, and it has many functions that will never be taken over by a private sector provider because they will never be able to be profitable. 

Government is also a messy business.  The process of setting priorities, funding programs with designated revenue streams, using inadequate general funds to support massive service needs, limiting taxation via two-thirds majority voting and the like all contribute to the complexity of making things run smoothly.  When money is tight, it is sometimes amazing that government can run at all!

The public forgets too that government cannot raise the price on a retail item or introduce a new product line with the ease of a private business.  It cannot decide to eliminate a program or service that is mandated by the law, while a business could decide to discontinue a product line.  It cannot declare bankruptcy or shut the doors and stop providing law enforcement, public health, public works, transportation or other vital services when things become too tight.  To maintain a civil society, these services still need to be provided.

While there is much that government can learn from good business processes and businesses can learn from government collaborations, government is truly different.  Perhaps we all need to become instructors educating the public, our government agencies and the elected officials in how government functions.  When someone votes on an initiative that specifies a revenue source dedicated to only one program, it can take money away from other programs.   We are all vulnerable when government is vulnerable.  We need to take the aim of this cannon off this structure of civil society!

 By Yvonne J. Kochanowski, DPA, MBA, yvonne.kochanowski@capella.edu

Is Higher Education Valued in Public Service?

On NPR recently, U. S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan talked about the value of higher education for those working in public service. Within the context of a discussion about the changes in the financial aid lending to students, Secretary Duncan noted that our public sector workers needed graduate levels of education to be fully prepared for their positions. How many public sector agencies truly value advanced degrees, though, in today’s times?

Looking back a decade or two, one realizes that prior advancement opportunities in state and local government included an education factor. To become a manager or to advance to senior leadership, a minimum of a Master’s degree was required and doctoral preparation was preferred in some specific disciplines. This was part of the professionalism of public service. Earning an advanced degree just about guaranteed that a conferee had achieved the skills and competencies required to lead the more complex government agencies of the day.

Sometime in the last decade, however, many departments and agencies devalued higher education. In some cases, supplemental payments for advanced degrees were decreased or eliminated. Degrees were no longer considered in promotions. It seemed to matter less what someone had learned and could practice changing workplace approaches, and more about how they could perform on a standardized test and how long they had warmed a seat. Advanced skills and competencies were no longer valued.

Today, that complexity is growing even more pressing, and resource allocation in a time of scarcity requires even greater advanced skills in our public sector workforce. Similarly, increased reliance on technology and public participation in issues of governance call for leadership that understands more than the basic principles and theories we may have relied upon in the field. Advances in the global community require leaders who can think critically, analyze thoroughly but without paralysis, and act inclusively to solve local, national and global problems.

Is our public sector workforce ready for this challenge? A fear stated by many who are ready to retire and pass the torch of leadership is that the upcoming generations, hired and advanced in a time when education was not in the forefront of budget-setters’ minds, is that they do not have the same education-based professional approach. They may not have the abilities required in tomorrow’s public sector organizations. While they have skills learned on the job, they have not been given the opportunity to increase their knowledge, the breadth, scope and depth that a Master’s degree or beyond will help them attain.

We cannot solve complex problems in society or meet the needs of our communities with the same degree of success without managers and leaders who have advanced degrees. As we become concerned about filling vacancies and promoting from within, it would serve our constituencies well if we considered rewarding graduate education once again. If, as Secretary Duncan has said, education is “the most pressing issue facing America,” we cheat both our workers and our communities out of skills and talent if we do not emphasize higher education advancement in our public sector institutions.

By Yvonne J. Kochanowski, DPA, MBA
yvonne.kochanowski@capella.edu

Motivations of the Public: Will the same old incentives still work?

Much has been written about how we can incentivize our public service workers.  What has motivated or encouraged a Baby Boomer will not be the same tactic that will work with a Generation Xer or a Millennial.  While we ponder the impact on our workforce, we would do well to think about the same kinds of issues as applied to the public we serve.

Implementing public policy is about bringing about some kind of change in behavior or actions in the public.  In the past, we have used taxes, penalties and other consequences that create a negative environment.  If you do wrong and engage in the unwanted behaviors, you pay in some way.  There is a cost to continuing that action.  But will this same negative system of disincentives work for coming generations of the public?  How can we best motivate the public to change in coming years?

There are a number of ways we need to consider our encouragement of positive changes in future generations.  First and perhaps foremost, we need to consider the communications styles that appeal to generations coming of age in a time when technology has always been a part of their lives.  For Millennials, a more casual communications approach must still embrace a direct style.  Implication and nuance may not be as effective as straightforward messages.  Social networking as a means to both spread the desired message and track performance may be a very appropriate means of change in society.

Homelanders, the generation still in development today, will likely be use to being tracked carefully by their techie parents and may in fact be much more protected as a result.  While their parents appreciate public praise and are very close to familial or quasi-family social networks, this upcoming group may well respond to more personal incentives for future change and therefore may need to understand more about what is in it for them.  Highly competitive Millennials are proving to be civic-minded and open to positive change; their children may likewise be models of public participation and service.

These generations that will drive future societal adjustments through their acceptance or denial of change will be the people that we as public administrators will be attempting to influence through our policy implementation.  If we select the wrong incentives, change will not occur as we would hope.  Taking the possible tax on sugared sodas as a current example, some Millennials have already raised a cry against this as a punishment for something that people should have a right to buy.  How is this different from existing cigarette or alcohol taxes?  It is not, but the people who are most impacted by it, the people whose behavior and actions we wish to change, are!

By Yvonne J. Kochanowski, DPA, MBA, yvonne.kochanowski@capella.edu

Appealing Past the Generation Gap: Our Public Sector Workforce

Much has been written in recent years about the large numbers of government workers who are retiring and the lack of sufficient qualified replacements in our agencies and departments. In addition to the institutional memory and experience that are exiting our doors, we are facing a crisis in confidence on the rewards of public sector work. Younger generations, it is said, do not have the same commitment to public service, more willing to work for a private corporation than toil in the cubicles and warrens that typify so many government offices and for what is now becoming fewer benefits, less pay and most of all, scanty recognition.

Perhaps the issue is not so much a crisis in confidence, though, as our own inability to create a newly appealing message about the value of public service. Baby Boomers, raised on the service environment of parents impacted by wars and drawn to public causes and definitions of new freedoms, felt a moral obligation to make the world a better place. Many found public service as a means to continue these visionary trends even as they settled into midlife and long-term work commitments. The period of societal change and government growth that followed matched public service together well with their crusader characteristics.

How then do we reach out and attract the generations that follow them to public service? Gen X’ers appreciate liberty and honor and all that these terms stand for. Liberty is not only the freedoms in our country, but also the freedom to make decisions and take actions, and that translates into workplace flexibility and opportunities for collaboration. Appealing to not only their national honor, but also their desire to have personal leadership in their work routines, something difficult to achieve in many regulation-heavy jobs, may work well in attracting Gen X’s.

Millennials or Gen Y’s are attracted to a different set of criteria. While their predecessor generation actively seeks leadership roles, they are less inclined to be motivated by this and more likely to pursue autonomy in a more casual style. As evidenced by the current trends in social networking and communications, they appreciate community and technology in ways that were not obvious or fully defined before. Their sense of loyalty is to their team or community, and they value affluence. Reaching these upcoming and future workers may involve thinking about new processes that cross discipline and technology boundaries as well as rewarding achievements in a monetary fashion.

There are not absolutes, and certainly each generation is more than this simplified explanation. If we examine our traditional ways of doing business in recruiting and retaining our talent, though, perhaps we will do a better job of tailoring our message to what is expected of today’s and tomorrow’s public servants. If we do not, we run the risk of vital tasks left undone and empty desks, missing opportunities to continue the best of all traditions: public service for the people of our country.

By Yvonne J. Kochanowski, DPA, MBA
yvonne.kochanowski@capella.edu