… 21st Century Effective Administrative Management Research Conference in Public Management, June 2015 The Canadian Association for Programs in Public …

… 21st Century Effective Administrative Management Research Conference in Public Management, June 2015 The Canadian Association for Programs in Public …内容摘要：

Public Management of the 21st Century Effective Administrative Management Research Conference in Public Management, June 2015 The Canadian Association for Programs in Public Administration Submitted to: Dr. Ian Roberge Glendon Campus York University 2275 Bayview Avenue Toronto, ON M4N 3M6 By Caroline Covell Walden University Public Policy and Administration Specialization: Public Leadership and Management c/o 66 Bay Rd. Lombardy, ON K0G 1L0  613.283.1852  carol59@xplornet.com or covellcaroline@gmail.com Abstract Many have tried to restructure public administration using different modern management theories, with the promise that they bring change and it will bring efficiency to the government. Unfortunately, the promise only sounds good in paper. However, the promise of change that brings efficiency in the public administration is an outward inside, and it is always a failure effort because it does not have any theoretical foundation, but simply a collection of ideas. As this collection of ideas is applied in the public administration, it destroys good management practices. For decades, the government has been functioned without proper management system because the new public management emphasizes on self-management and operational management without leadership roles and eventually, it becomes dysfunction. Despite the dysfunctionality, still, many tries to reform the system according to different perceptions or ideas adopted from the views of external observant, rather than, what Towne said, the perception of a public administrator. Management matters. As a public administrator, I will discuss the theoretical foundation of the public administration and applies this theory into the management of its administrative process for the 21 st century public management. Introduction Many people like to become public leaders because they view public leadership from the political lenses – the fund raisings and gala events, marketing, political debates, the travel and the accolade, the campaign and the election, then the celebration – all are grand. They want to become leaders as soon as after the election. All politicians want to hold the cabinet ministry position because it gives them the most satisfaction (Docherty, 1990) to their ego. Others come to the government as political appointees. Under the New Public Management, which is the corporate system of management and philosophy, the elected officials and appointed officials are considered as the leaders, ones who can tell others what to do (McShane, 1992) and to act as agents on behalf of clients, as well as political masters to the political staffs. The political appointees are called “managers,” as suggested by Osborne and Gaebler (1992), people who manage the departments and agencies and act as the principals on behalf of the public. Both the elected and appointed officials come directly from the outside, are never given any training, or never go through a development process. Consequently, they carry with them their own personal interests or the interests of particular groups (Dube, 1963) that have tie to them politically. One inside the government, they restructure and restructure to make the organization they lead to become more like the one they are familiar with, which is their own firms or the firms they work for. They make it small with the environment they are accustomed to. While restructuring gives them a grand entrance to the newly elected and appointed leaders, it gives the leaders an opportunity to bring their own “birds of the same feathers” so they can fly together. Most leaders still “lack of any” or that they lack credentials, poor technical capacity, and incompetent, or Rotberg (2006) and Chairman Mao called them “knowledge illiterate.” In order to lead or manage the bureaucratic organizations, one must go through a development process (Mintzberg, 1999) because public sector and private sector are different in every aspect (Reed & Swain, 1991). Despite some scholars try to equalize or generalize them, they will never be the same (Kessler & Alexander, 2004). In fact, it is risky (Kramer, 1998) and dangerous to try to equalize them (Graham, 2007). In their efforts of restructuring and constant restructuring with each changing leaders, the bureaucratic organizations become unstable, very fragile, and eventually, they become dysfunction. Akin (2012) stated, the system is so broken – the structure, management and administration – that no one can s