Introduction
Decision-making and motivation may arguably be the most important concepts in management. However, it is very easy for managers to get it wrong if they do not see the broader picture of decision-making and motivation. Garvin & Roberto (2001) say that decision-making and motivation are at the core of effective leadership because leaders show their mettle by setting strategies and motivating people.
By focusing on decision-making alone, it is crucial to mention that the quality of decisions mainly defines the success or failure of leaders. Despite the importance of decision-making to managers, Garvin & Roberto (2001) say that many people would be surprised at how managers fail at this important task.
This paper highlights the importance of decision-making to aspiring managers in the public sector. The public sector captures the gist of this paper because unlike the private sector, the public sector is subject to unique dynamics that stress the importance of valuing decision-making and motivation. From this importance, this paper first explores the unique dynamics that make the public sector exceptional for aspiring managers.
Uniqueness of Public Sector
Public organizations differ from private organizations because their success depends on negotiations and existing networks. Moreover, even though goal setting is an important exercise in public and private organizations, organizational goals are usually vague in the public sector (Bright 2008). The vagueness of goals in the public sector complicates the decision-making process.
The existence of excessive authority from superiors in the public sector also makes it difficult to obtain the time and money to implement such ideas in the public sector (Nutt 2005). Furthermore, the pressure of embracing more involvement and negotiations in the public sector forces managers in this sector to be highly reliant on existing networks to obtain good bargains in their decision-making processes.
Consequently, decision-making in the public sector is unique because it is very vulnerable to criticism from external networks (Nutt 2005). Therefore, managers in public sectors are often wary not to adopt decisions that conflict with public opinion.
Such an approach denies them the opportunity to be analytical in their decision-making processes, thereby equally denying them the opportunity to consider the risks that they face in their strategic decision-making processes.
Importance of Decision-making for Public Service Managers
In an article by Berman & West (1998), responsible decision-making is an important virtue for public sector managers. Its importance stems from the fact that increased productivity and low-levels of litigation come from responsible decision-making. Through this understanding, it is impossible to deny the importance of contemporary managerial decision-making in the public sector.
This importance especially manifests in the public sector because the public sector environment is often turbulent (Berman & West 1998). Therefore, managers in this sector have to make innovative decisions to overcome the adversity and uncertainty that characterize public service.
Prudent decision-making in the public service sector therefore manifests as an important yardstick for managers to polish their performance in this sector because this is the most commonly used yardstick for measuring the performance of managers in this sector (Berman & West 1998).
Williams & Miller (2002) say that public service managers should therefore be careful not to adopt strategies that complicate their work. For example, they caution managers not to adopt “one-size-fit all” strategies when engaging with organizational stakeholders. Instead, he says managers should engage with organizational stakeholders according to different decision-making styles.
For example, Williams & Miller (2002) say that in a business-related context, where people have to pitch proposals, it is wrong for employees to put a lot of effort in polishing the contents of their presentations, while neglecting their communication strategies. Instead, they say people should pay close attention to the decision-making style of the decision-maker and design their messages to appeal to this style (Williams & Miller 2002).
Importance of Motivation for Public Service Managers
It is very important for managers to pay attention to the relationship that exists between decision-making and motivation. This relationship may define the success or failure of their managerial prospects. The importance of managers to pay close attention to employee motivation has always surfaced in both the public and private sectors.
However, according to Kim & Mauborgne (2003), the importance of employee motivation is more important in the public sector because the public sector is slowly turning into a knowledge-based industry, which almost entirely depends on the commitment and ideas of its employees.
Albeit motivation is an important factor in public sector management, it is important to understand that motivation is complicated in its right. Indeed, ever since Elton Mayo affirmed, through his experiments, that workplace productivity improved through increased motivation, many people have failed to understand the true dynamics of workplace motivation (Herzberg 2003).
The complication in understanding motivation also manifests through the limited power that public service managers have in motivating their employees. For example, even though a low pay may be demoralizing for employees, there is no empirical evidence to support the increase of motivational levels if employees receive hefty paychecks (Herzberg 2003).
Managers have therefore been intrigued by the disconnect that exists between the factors that motivate employees and the factors that cause employee discontent. Nonetheless, Herzberg (2003) says that it is important for managers to understand that the best way they can motivate their employees to improve productivity is by giving them interesting work and challenges so that they can equally grow in their careers.
Nonetheless, the importance of motivation to managers who work in the public sector manifests through the fact that most public managers usually suffer from a negative work attitude (Chen 2012, p. 437). However, the same scenario is false for managers who work in the private sector.
The differences in attitudes between public service managers and private sector managers stem from two of the following reasons: lack of workplace flexibility and the presence of bureaucracies in the public sector.
Besides these factors, Chen (2012) says, “individuals attracted to work in the public sector have a stronger extrinsic motivation, stronger motivation, and weaker intrinsic motivation. These motivation styles compromise their work attitudes” (p. 437).
Despite the existence of differences in attitudes between the public and private sectors, Chen (2012) says that many managers in both the private and public sectors have to interact with different stakeholders. This interaction makes the identification and attainment of their goals to be very complex. However, uniquely, the existence of strict formal structures in the public sector limits managers to work freely.
This fact especially worsens from the fact that many managers in the public sector need to protect the interest of the public first, as opposed to securing their personal interests (Chen 2012). Certainly, most public service managers have to contend with this inescapable push.
Relative to the pressure to work for the public, Chen (2012) observers that public sector managers are therefore concerned with their job securities as they devote most of their time to serve and safeguard public interests. However, based on the theory of attribution, many public service managers believe their control of behavioral outcomes remain passive (Chen 2012).
Kim & Mauborgne (2003) say that the public sector is also vulnerable to poor employee motivation when employees realize that their manager does not make sound decisions. This outcome also suffices when managers fail to act with integrity. The lack of employee motivation may manifest in several ways including employees exhibiting a lot of distrust, and possibly the lack engagement with the manager.
Comparisons to this lack of trust may manifest in the surprising attacks that America has experienced recently after it witnessed deadly terrorist attacks in the 2013 Chicago Marathon, or even past collapses of financial systems and institutions like Enron (Kramer 2002).
Such calamities lower the levels of trust that many Americans have towards their security systems and financial systems, which should safeguard citizens against such calamities. The same situation applies to the public sector because when employees lose faith in their managers, they become disengaged.
The lack of trust and faith in managers (caused by the failure to make good decisions) often has serious ramifications. For example, the lack of trust among employees (regarding their managers) normally results in the production of laboriously detailed policies (Kim & Mauborgne 2003).
Such policies may also be constricting, and highly inflexible. Since managers who fail to make prudent decisions disturb employees, Kim & Mauborgne (2003) say, employees will always try to prevent such managers from making such decisions in the future.
Relative to the above assertion, Kim & Mauborgne (2003) claim, “in their indignation, they may try to roll back decisions imposed unfairly, even when the decisions themselves were good ones – even when they were critical to the competitiveness of the institution, or beneficial to the workers themselves” (p. 132).
The above shortcomings inform the declining interest for public service jobs among young employees (Bright 2008, p. 149). This trend has caused many practitioners to develop a lot of interest regarding the impact of public service on human resource performance.
However, with the increased concern regarding the declining interest in public service jobs, many practitioners have a difficult task trying to find the best people who are suited for public service jobs. This is because the cost of low employee satisfaction and a high employee turnover is very high in this sector (Bright 2008).
However, public service motivation surfaces as an important tool for finding the right candidates for public service jobs. Therefore, today’s managers have to appreciate the importance of public service motivation because it is an important tool in the recruitment, training, and socialization of employees in the public sector (Bright 2008).
Conclusion
Public service sector managers often have a very difficult task of ensuring their organizations work to achieve their goals. However, as Mc Gregor (cited in Bobic & Davis 2003) observes, the role of managers surpasses the task of just giving orders to their subjects and expecting obedience thereafter. Instead, public service managers need to contend with the undesirable human resource issues that characterize public service.
These issues explain the negative work attitudes in the public service sector. Furthermore, the high level of accountability and the existence of extensive, and sometimes limiting, constitutional guidelines in the public service sector exhaust public service managers, thereby worsening their work attitudes.
These dynamics show that public service managers should need to be exceptionally aware of the importance of embracing sound decision-making skills and effective motivational tools because public service is open to intense scrutiny and poor working conditions, which may compromise employee performance.
References
Berman, E & West, J 1998, ‘Responsible Risk-Taking’, Public Administration Review, vol. 58 no. 4, pp. 346-352.
Bobic, M & Davis, W 2003, ‘Word for Theory X: Or Why So Many new fangled Management techniques quickly fail’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 13 no. 3, pp. 239-264.
Bright, L 2008, ‘Does Public Service Motivation Really Make a Difference on the Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions of Public Employees’, The American Review of Public Administration, vol. 38 no. 2, pp. 149-166.
Chen, C 2012, ‘Explaining the Difference of Work Attitudes between Public and Nonprofit Managers: The Views of Rule Constraints and Motivation Styles’, The American Review of Public Administration, vol. 42 no. 4, pp. 437– 460.
Garvin, D & Roberto, M 2001, ‘What you don’t know about making decisions’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 79 no. 8, pp. 108-116.
Herzberg, F 2003, ‘One More Time How Do You motivate Employees’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 81 no. 1, pp. 86-96.
Kim, C & Mauborgne, F 2003, ‘Process: Managing in the Knowledge Economy’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 81 no. 1, pp. 127-136.
Kramer, R 2002, ‘When paranoia makes Sense’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 80 no. 7, pp. 62-69.
Nutt, P 2005, ‘Comparing Public and Private Sector Decision-Making Practices’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 16 no. 1, pp. 289–318.
Williams, G & Miller, R 2002, ‘Change the way you persuade’, Harvard Business review, vol. 80 no. 5, pp. 64-73.